U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

25–116 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–267 

GRAZING POLICY CHANGES PROPOSED BY THE 

U.S. FOREST SERVICE 

HEARING 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SPECIAL HEARING 

AUGUST 30, 2005—BISMARCK, ND 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

J. KEITH KENNEDY, Staff Director 

TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES

CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

Professional Staff 

BRUCE EVANS

GINNY JAMES

LEIF FONNESBECK

RYAN THOMAS

REBECCA BENN

PETER KIEFHABER (Minority) 

RACHAEL TAYLOR (Minority) 

Administrative Support 

MICHELE GORDON
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Opening statement of Senator Byron L. Dorgan ................................................... 1 

Opening statement of Representative Earl Pomeroy ............................................ 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Statement of Gail Kimbell, Regional Forester, Northern Region, U.S. Forest 

Service, Department of AgriculturE ................................................................... 75 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 77 

Janette Kaiser, Director, Rangelands, U.S. Forest Service, Department of 

Agriculture ............................................................................................................ 75 

Dave Pieper, Grasslands Supervisor, Dakota Prairie Grasslands, U.S. Forest 

Service, Department of Agriculture .................................................................... 75 

Statement of Randall Mosser, president, North Dakota Grazing Association ... 105 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 107 

Statement of Keith Winter, president, McKenzie County Grazing Association ........................................................................................................................ 109 

Statement of Todd Anderson, president, Sheyenne Valley Grazing Association ........................................................................................................................ 258 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 258 

Statement of Joe Milton, Jr., rancher .................................................................... 259 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 259 

Statement of Tony Huseth, rancher ....................................................................... 260 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 262 

(1) 

GRAZING POLICY CHANGES PROPOSED BY 

THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE 

TUESDAY, AUGUST 30, 2005 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES, COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Bismarck, ND. 

The subcommittee met at 11 a.m., at the Bismarck State College 

Student Union, 1500 Edwards Avenue, Missouri Room, Bismarck, 

North Dakota, Senator Byron L. Dorgan presiding. 

Present: Senator Dorgan. 

Also present: Representative Earl Pomeroy. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

Senator DORGAN. Good morning to all of you. I’m Byron Dorgan. 

This is a hearing of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, U.S. 

Senate. Senator Conrad Burns from Montana is the chairman of 

that subcommittee, and I am the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee. 

With the concurrence of Senator Burns from Montana, we are 

holding the hearing today in Bismarck. He was hoping to be able 

to be here. His schedule would not allow him to fly over. He’s in 

Montana this morning for something previously scheduled, but he 

wanted me to proceed to hold the hearing. 

His staff director on that subcommittee, Bruce Evans, is with us 

today, and Bruce is right over here. We have my staff, Peter 

Kiefhaber and Rachael Taylor, right over on this side, and they’re 

welcome to pull up chairs as we move along if you wish. 

We will formally convene the hearing. Congressman Pomeroy is 

in North Dakota as well. It’s the August break from the Congress. 

He indicated he was available here in Bismarck, and I invited him 

to sit in. And I’m pleased that Congressman Pomeroy sits in. 

As you know, the House of Representatives has 435 members, so 

they operate largely on the 1 minute rule. Every opportunity they 

get to participate in a Senate event when we have unlimited debate, House Members will be asked for that opportunity. So I’m 

really pleased that my colleague, Congressman Pomeroy, is here. 

This is an issue that is very important. I know we have many 

ranchers here in the crowd, we have representatives of the Forest 

Service, and we’re going to hear about a series of issues. Let me 

begin with an opening statement and describe why we’re here. 

First of all, I’m here because I want some straight answers from 

the Forest Service. I was surprised, as I would suspect everybody 
2 

in this room who ranches was surprised, by the rules or regulations 

put out in the handbook recently. 

When they were put out, we were told that they were already in 

effect and they would begin to work with these new rules and regulations and deal with leasing of base property and its attachment 

to the issue of grazing rights and a series of other things. Shared 

cattle, the carrying capacity, measuring and carrying capacity of 

grazing lands. A whole series of things. 

I was surprised by it because no one had told me that—at least 

I wasn’t aware that we were nearing a point where someone was 

going to say that this is going to change after many, many, many 

decades, and yet, it was put out and announced it was in effect. 

That’s unfair. It’s wrong. I believe the policy itself is wrong, but the 

procedure by which it was done was just flat out wrong. 

I wrote to the Forest Service immediately when I found out and 

asked for a suspension of these new policies. The Forest Service, 

I’m pleased to say, did, in fact, suspend the policies about 6 or 8 

days after we sent the letter. So the result is we’re now holding a 

hearing of the Interior Appropriations subcommittee. 

We, in fact, fund the Forest Service. That’s our connection here 

to the Forest Service. This subcommittee funds the Forest Service, 

and so we’re really pleased that all of you are here. 

I’m going to make a few comments about this, and then I’m going 

to have Congressman Pomeroy make a couple comments. We are 

then going to hear from the Forest Service, ask questions of the 

Forest Service, and then we’re going to hear from a panel of ranchers—the conclusion of which I hope will give all of us a better understanding of where we are, what’s happening, and what we can 

do about it. 

Let me just say, first of all, that one would not normally think 

that the Forest Service would have anything to do with grasslands, 

and normally they shouldn’t. They’re about forests. 

In case anybody has noticed lately, forests are different than 

grasslands, very different. So my own feeling is the grasslands 

ought to be managed by someone else. NCRS or someone in USDA, 

not the Forest Service. Nonetheless, we are where we are, and 

until that changes, the Forest Service manages the grasslands. 

There are people in the Forest Service who I believe want a onerule-fits-all template that you put over grasslands just as they do 

the forests. Doesn’t work. Can’t work in my judgment. So that’s a 

serious problem. 

We work long and hard. Congressman Pomeroy was a part of it, 

and Senator Conrad and myself, we worked long and hard to say 

to the Forest Service, you know, if you had a forest out here you 

were managing, you’d have a forest supervisor. You’d have a forest 

supervisor. So because you’re supervising grasslands, we want a 

grassland supervisor out here. 

That’s where Mr. Pieper came in, but that was not an easy fight. 

It took a long while to get that. The reason we fought for that is 

because we believed very strongly, Senator Conrad, Congressman 

Pomeroy, and I believed very strongly, as did the ranchers, that 

grasslands are not forests. So you can’t just take a set of rules and 

deal with forest and say, okay, we’ll just impose them on the grasslands. It’s a separate entity. It needs to be treated separately. 
3 

Now, we’ve got a lot of people who are here to talk today. Teddy 

Roosevelt once said, ‘‘Ranchers don’t talk very much. They do most 

of their work in the saddle.’’ 

That’s true, but ranchers are plenty interested in talking at an 

opportunity like this. I’ve heard from them. Many of you have 

heard from them as well, and so their discussion today is going to 

be very important. 

I don’t claim to be a rancher. I know something about this life 

just a bit. We raised some horses and had a few cattle, but I don’t 

claim to understand the full value of all of the nuances here. 

But I want to say this: That Rodney Nelson wrote a piece once 

that I just jotted down for this morning. You know, ranching is not 

just a $600 million business in North Dakota—$600 million a year 

business—it’s a big part of our State. But ranching is also about 

values. Farming and ranching is about values. And Rodney Nelson 

of just west of here wrote something about it. 

He said, ‘‘What’s it worth for a kid to know how to fix a machine? 

How to hang a door? How to weld a seam? What’s it worth for a 

kid to know how to work livestock, how to teach a calf to drink 

from a bucket, how to plant a crop? What’s it worth for a kid to 

know how to build a lean-to, how to drive a tractor, how to butcher 

a steer, how to grease a combine, how to milk a cow?’’ 

He said, ‘‘We sent millions of people that knew all of this from 

America’s farms and ranches in the Second World War to go 

around the world, and they could fix anything any time. What’s it 

worth? It’s about values.’’ 

Now, let me just describe quickly what’s happening here. Some 

years ago, unlike the forests, which have never been in most cases 

in private hands, unlike the forests which have always been in 

public hands in this country, some years ago much of our grasslands was taken into public hands from private people during the 

Great Depression. 

Accompanied by the Bankhead-Jones Act there was a certain understanding about how that was going to work, and how it was 

going to work is it was going to go from private hands to public 

ownership available for multiple use to be sure, but also a part of 

a continuing part of our agricultural economy, especially with respect to grazing, in order to continue helping the economy of this 

State, and helping farmers and ranchers. That was the foundation 

for it. It’s important to understand that. 

Now, what has happened is over a period of a long time, the Forest Service has been managing this and we’ve had our fights. But 

what has happened in the last few months in my judgment is a 

real setback because—and I’m going to ask Ms. Kimbell, and Mr. 

Pieper, and Ms. Kaiser about this. 

But this is supposed to be a partnership, and you don’t have a 

partnership by announcing: ‘‘Here are the new rules by the way. 

We didn’t really talk to you about them. We didn’t meet with you 

about them. We didn’t consult with you about them, but here are 

the rules.’’ 

I want to know who in Washington triggers that or who in the 

regional office triggers that to say, yeah, this is fine. It’s not fine. 

Not fine with me, and I don’t believe it’s fine with the U.S. Con-
4 

gress. I’m going to do everything I can to try to change this and 

try to make it right. 

You know, the fact is this issue of leasing base property. We’ve 

been doing that for 70 years. Yes, it’s different in North Dakota, 

but so what? That was the rule. That’s the way it started. That’s 

the way it was suppose to have been. Now all the sudden somebody 

wants to change it. 

What will it mean? Well, it will mean that young ranchers won’t 

have a start. It just means we won’t have a future in ranching. 

Aside from the fact that it’s just unfair. 

Now, I’m just going to mention two other things. I wish that 

Margaret McKutchen could be here today. I read her letter. I’ve got 

a letter from Martha. I also read a piece that Laura Donovan wrote 

in the Bismarck Tribune about Martha. 

My guess is her testimony could be real, real short. Just a couple 

words, just based on what I read in the Bismarck Tribune, but we 

would all understand the point. Martha is 85 years old, a widow. 

She understands how this leasing decision would affect her. We 

can’t let that happen. 

Let me read to you a letter I got. I read it this morning, from 

a 12-year-old. Landon Lector. A 12-year-old boy, and I don’t know 

Landon, but here’s what he says: 

‘‘My name is Landon Lector. I’m 12 years old. My grandpa and 

I spend time on his ranch in the Badlands. He and I have visited 

about the changes being made. I don’t get it. He gets very upset 

when he explains it to me. 

‘‘Do all of these things really need to happen to my grandpa and 

I? I want a ranch someday. Will my grandpa also be able to help 

me? Grandpa always says ‘God will look out for us.’ ’’ 

Well, the question for Landon, I suppose, is: Will the Forest Service look out for us? 

So the purpose of this hearing is to get some answers and some 

straight talk. And frankly, I don’t like what’s happened. I’m upset 

by what’s happened. This should not happen. This is a Federal 

Agency. It’s a big old bureaucracy. It has a responsibility to us. 

My preference would be that the grasslands not be managed by 

the Forest Service in the future. Until we can effect that change, 

if we can effect that change, we’re stuck with what we have. That 

is the Forest Service. But we have to expect the Forest Service is 

going to treat this as a partnership, and it has not. 

This surprise with respect to leasing and other issues is a devastating surprise to a lot of ranches. It is unfair. It will hurt this 

State. It will hurt families. It will hurt our economy, and we can’t 

let this happen. 

So let me call on my colleague Congressman Pomeroy for a few 

comments and then we will hear from the Forest Service. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF REP. EARL POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Senator Dorgan, for purposes of today’s hearing 

I’ll say Mr. Chairman. Thank you for convening this hearing of the 

Appropriations subcommittee. 

Thank you also for the work you have done in signaling our 

sharp disagreement with the Forest Service relative to today’s interim directives. 
5 

In my entire experience of relations with the Forest Service as 

one Agency of the Federal Government, an entity with lots of agencies, I have never seen an approach used on such substantive matters as was attempted by the Forest Service with these interim directives. 

It raises many deeply disturbing questions that need answers, 

and I hope we’ll get some today. I expect we’ll be getting answers 

for some time. 

The use of an interim directive to essentially change effective law 

relative to our ranchers through the Grazing Associations as lease 

holders of the Federal land is, I believe, a dangerous departure 

from the protections Americans have under the Administrative 

Practices Act. 

That law requires an Agency that’s going to take your rights 

away to at least make advance publication to hold formal hearings, 

gathering public input, and to develop a record of decision making 

as rationale for the policies advanced. 

Now, maybe that was just a little too cumbersome for the Forest 

Service in this instance because what they did with their interim 

directives published on July 19 was totally change in very important ways, this contractual relationship between our ranchers and 

the Federal Government through the Forest Service. And they 

came out to the associations and said, ‘‘Here it is. This is done. 

This is the new requirement. Take it or leave it.’’ 

That kind of heavy hand arbitrary approach of the Federal Government threatens our ranchers. But in a broader sense, it threatens every American. We have rights and we won’t stand for that 

type of treatment by those agencies. 

We also have a lot of questions we need answered relative to the 

substance underlying the changes. The Forest Service has said this 

is the first time they have tried to update the handbook in 20 

years, been a lot of case law and other issues since that time, needs 

updating from time to time. 

Well, we need a clear distinction between what changes are driven because of what has unfolded as a matter of case law or involving Federal law in Congress, and what is essentially the whim and 

wishes within certain officials in the U.S. Forest Service? 

I am especially concerned about the prohibition advance on lease 

transfer and the seemingly arbitrary line drawn of maximum of 7 

years or when the lease expires, whichever is earlier. And because 

lease terms are often 3 years, it is often earlier. 

I want some explanation in terms of what analysis the Forest 

Service did that gave you a notion that a new operator can come 

in, generate the kind of capital to buy the cattle, buy the base acreage for purposes of obtaining this lease transfer. 

Whoever thought this one up in the Forest Service seems to have 

a fundamental ignorance of economics of ranching or for that matter finance 101. 

But these are the kinds of things an Agency, that’s operating 

within the Administrative Practices Act, can actually hear and internalize and learn from before they run out; new requirements on 

behalf of the Federal Government. 

The last 2 weeks I’ve met with the McKenzie Grazing Association 

in Watford City. I met with the Medora Grazing Association in 
6 

Dickinson yesterday, and I believe it is a fair statement that I have 

now as a Member of Congress spent more time studying the implications of your new directives than the Forest Service has itself. 

Senator Dorgan, your hearing is urgently needed, and I hope 

that we hear in the testimony from the Agency a very serious reconsideration of this whole ill-advised notion. 

Final point I want to make, and I’ll introduce it in evidence as 

the hearing unfolds. I have correspondence here. We were copied 

as members of the Congressional Delegation. 

It was sent to the Forest Service, to Sheila McNee, a range program leader, whom I understand was a principal employee of the 

Forest Service studying all this, dated January 22, 2004. The signatures are the Medora Grazing Association, Little Missouri Grazing Association, Grand River Grazing Association, Sheyenne Valley 

Grazing Association, McKenzie County Grazing Association, and 

Horse Creek Grazing Association. 

It is the definitive statement on the ideas floating about, the 

ideas that ultimately became the interim directives. 

This was prepared substantively and in considerable effort and 

sent to the Forest Service. The receipt of which was not even acknowledged. There was ultimately no feedback. Nothing relative to 

this at all until attendance at the Grazing Association meetings by 

Forest Service personnel with the interim directives about the new 

requirements. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Now, that is not how the Federal Government should operate. 

It’s not how the Forest Service should operate, and I never want 

to see an Agency operate like this again. And by God, if we have 

to pass laws to make sure they don’t, we’ll pass them because the 

American people deserve more protection than that from their own 

Government. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REP. EARL POMEROY

Senator Dorgan, thank you for calling this hearing today and for allowing me to 

join you as we investigate changes to management of our National Grasslands proposed by the U.S. Forest Service. I believe this hearing offers us the opportunity 

to delve more into the process by which these changes were developed and arrive 

at critical answers to questions that have arisen about both the process used by the 

Forest Service and the substance of the changes proposed or already implemented. 

Yesterday and last week, I visited with some of the ranchers here today to learn 

their concerns about the changes. Unfortunately, I had the feeling that in just these 

two short visits, I had spent more time with them discussing these changes than 

the Forest Service had in their development of the proposal. This is simply not right 

and is not how the Federal Government should work. 

Several issues concern me about the Forest Service’s actions in this case. 

First, the agency appears to be using a method to change policy that purposefully 

minimizes public participation. Interim Directives go into force immediately upon 

publication in the Federal Register, no public comment required. This is the case 

despite the Office of Management and Budget finding that the change was ‘‘substantive.’’ The Forest Service only backed off from putting much of the policy into 

place immediately upon an outcry from public officials and ranchers. 

Second, the changes being proposed to these handbooks are not simply instructions to personnel about proper forms to use for managing the grasslands or about 

procedural matters. They directly and substantively affect the livelihood of ranchers 

in the area. As a result, no change should be implemented without considerable and 
7 

thorough input from affected parties, including the ranchers, grazing associations, 

and the public at large. 

Third, the changes being proposed are not justified by the Forest Service in the 

Federal Register and appear to be arbitrary decisions made without the informed 

input of experts on the ground. The use of a seven-year limit on leasing of property 

to satisfy base ownership qualification requirements is a perfect example. Why 

seven years? The ranchers I spoke with—some who own land they ranch, some who 

lease—insist that this period of time is simply too short to build up the equity necessary to purchase of land, cattle, and equipment. 

To sum up, I believe the Forest Service should see this hearing as an opportunity 

to evaluate its procedures and determine ways to better enhance its relationship 

with ranchers and grazing associations on the ground. I hope the agency uses the 

hearing today for this purpose and that we receive the answers we need to the 

many questions that relate to the changes proposed and implemented in the Forest 

Service handbook. 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 

Senator DORGAN. Congressman Pomeroy, thank you very much. 

Let me also point out that Senator Conrad has not been able to be 

with us this morning, but he has been a part of our communications to the Forest Service and has met with the Grazing Associations as well. And I believe it would be fair to say that he expresses 

the same concerns and interests that Congressman Pomeroy and I 

express today. 

We’re joined as a first set of witnesses, and I believe the only one 

who will make a presentation is Gail Kimbell, the Regional Forester for the Northern Region, which is in Montana, I believe. 

She is joined by Janette Kaiser, Director of Rangeland Management, I believe from the Washington office, and Dave Pieper, the 

Grassland Supervisor from the Dakota Prairie Grasslands. 

Ms. Kimbell, you have obviously heard an earful from us, and we 

appreciate your traveling to Bismarck today. As I indicated, we 

really want some straight answers from the Forest Service today. 

Let me recognize you for any statement you wish to make. If you 

would pull the microphone close to you, I would appreciate it very 

much. 

STATEMENT OF GAIL KIMBELL, REGIONAL FORESTER, NORTHERN 

REGION, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

JANETTE KAISER, DIRECTOR, RANGELANDS, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

DAVE PIEPER, GRASSLANDS SUPERVISOR, DAKOTA PRAIRIE 

GRASSLANDS, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Ms. KIMBELL. Mr. Chairman and Representative Pomeroy, thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you today. Yes, I am the 

Regional Forester for the Northern Region of the U.S. Forest Service. That includes national forest system lands in Northern Idaho, 

across the State of Montana and across the State of North Dakota 

with pieces of South Dakota and a tiny little piece of the State of 

Washington. 

Let me quickly summarize the issue that brings us together 

today. On July 19, the Forest Service published some long anticipated revisions to 16 chapters of our manuals and handbooks regarding rangeland management. 

One of those chapters contained a sentence that was most unfortunate in both its exact wording and the energy it created in its 

wake. 

It is not the intent of the U.S. Forest Service to eliminate leasing 

of base property or of livestock as options in managing the Dakota 

Prairie Grasslands. We have taken to withdraw the offensive language, and today have posted two chapters—those two chapters, 

Chapters 10 and 20—on our Agency website with the corrected language, and we have submitted them to the Federal Register for 

publishing, again without that offensive language. 

The Chief of the Forest Service has been very vocal about his 

concerns for open—— 

Senator DORGAN. Excuse me. Can you—I just want to have everyone understand what you’re saying here. When you say, ‘‘that 

offending language,’’ you started by saying there was one sentence. 

Ms. KIMBELL. One sentence that appeared twice. 
76 

Senator DORGAN. So that’s the offending language—— 

Ms. KIMBELL. The offensive language—— 

Senator DORGAN [continuing]. That you’re speaking to now? 

Ms. KIMBELL. Regarding leasing of base property. 

Senator DORGAN. I just want everyone to understand what you’re 

responding. 

Ms. KIMBELL. The Chief of the Forest Service has been very 

vocal, very consistent in talking about the need for consideration 

of open space and working landscapes. This has been across forested landscapes, and rangeland landscapes. 

The National Forest Systems do include a great deal of forest 

lands. They also include a great deal of rangelands, aside from the 

National Grasslands. 

Keeping ranchers on the land is a critical part of that whole picture as the Chief envisions it and as we all envision the management of public lands. 

We will continue to work with the people of North Dakota and 

the people of South Dakota to finalize the language regarding leasing of base property and leasing of livestock in the finalization of 

the language of those chapters that appeared today on the Forest 

Service website and will appear in the Federal Register here very 

shortly. 

Dave Pieper and his staff have worked concertedly over the last 

several years with the grazing associations and with the individual 

permittees, and I would expect that as we work through this and 

some other issues, we will continue to work in that same collaborative way. 

We do have side boards in the management of National Grasslands. They’re managed as part of the national forest system permanently held by the Department of Agriculture for administration 

under the purposes of Title 3 of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant 

Act. 

However, it is important to note that Congress has not exempted 

the National Grasslands from other legislation such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 

and the National Forest Planning Act of 1976. 

The Dakota Prairie Grasslands, created as a separate National 

Forest System unit in 1998, administers the day-to-day activities 

of the National Grasslands in North and two National Grasslands 

in South Dakota. 

Of the roughly 100 permanent employees, there are clearly 25 

that are permanently involved or almost totally involved with the 

rangeland management programs, and of those, a great many are 

native North Dakotans and were educated here in North Dakota. 

Others come from other great universities around the United 

States. 

The Forest Service recognizes and values the fact that its livestock grazing permittees contribute to the management of National 

Forest and Grasslands. We believe the proposed amendments to 

the Forest Service Rangeland Manual and Handbook meet both 

management and permittee needs. 
77 

PREPARED STATEMENT

However, it is our intent to make every effort to engage the public by providing information on the proposed directives and seeking 

comments from ranchers, Grazing Associations, State and local officials, tribal governments, and other stakeholders. 

Mr. Chairman, we would be happy to answer any questions you 

might have. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GAIL KIMBELL

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today to discuss the proposed amendments to the U.S. Forest 

Service Directives for Rangeland Management. I have with me today Janette Kaiser, National Director of Rangeland Management and Dave Pieper, the Grassland 

Supervisor, Dakota Prairie National Grasslands. 

BACKGROUND

The last major update to the Forest Service Rangeland Manual and Handbook occurred in 1985. Since 1985 new legislation (Rescissions Act of 1995, Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2003 and Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005), case law 

(Anchustegui v. USDA), changing needs on the ground, the need for consistency between all Forest Service Regions, and the need to address local practices and customs have shaped the need to update and clarify existing policy. Over the years, 

the Forest Service has listened to stakeholders, including livestock industry representatives, across the country regarding policy issues and we believe the proposed 

revisions to the directives address many of their expressed concerns. Our goal is to 

assure our policies are up-to-date and meet both agency and stakeholder needs. 

The Forest Service released amendments to its Rangeland Management Manual 

(FSM 2200) and to its Grazing Permit Administration Handbook (FSH 2209.13) on 

July 19, 2005. Concurrently, the agency issued Interim Directives to FSH 2209.13 

for Chapters 10 and 20 which contained both clarifications to existing policy and 

some new direction which became immediately effective for up to 18 months. In response to public concerns about the implementation of the new directions, this part 

of the Interim Directives was withdrawn. On August 19, 2005, the Forest Service 

released for public comment those parts of Chapters 10 and 20 in FSH 2209.13 that 

contained new direction as proposed directives. Those portions of Chapters 10 and 

20 of FSH 2209.13 that were not new direction were reissued as Interim Directives 

on August 16, 2005. The regulations governing rangeland management at 36 CFR 

222 are not being changed. All clarifications and proposed new direction deal only 

with agency policy. 

FSH 2209.13, Chapters 10 and 20 address the issuance and administration of 

term grazing permits and grazing agreements respectively. Chapter 10 describes the 

procedures to issue, modify, suspend and cancel term grazing permits. A term grazing permit may be obtained through prior permit use, acquisition of base property 

and/or permitted livestock, or grant authority. Chapter 20 describes procedures specifically for grazing agreements. A grazing agreement is issued to grazing associations similar to how a term grazing permit is issued to an individual. 

Sections 24.11 and 24.12 of FSH 2209.13 deal with base property requirements 

and share livestock provisions which are applicable to national grasslands. It is the 

intention of the Forest Service to retain share livestock and lease base property options to allow permittees to qualify and to develop provisions to improve their effectiveness on the ground. These practices provide a valuable tool to keep ranchers on 

the land and encourage ranch ownership. Keeping ranchers on the land is an important objective consistent through all the agency’s grazing policies. 

To that end, the National Grasslands are managed as part of the National Forest 

System and permanently held by the Department of Agriculture for administration 

under the provisions and purposes of Title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant 

Act (BJFTA). However, it is important to note that Congress has not exempted the 

national grasslands from other legislation such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). The RPA specifically includes the National Grasslands and land 

utilization projects administered under Title III of the BJFTA as part of the National Forest System. 
78 

The Dakota Prairie Grasslands, created as a separate National Forest System 

unit in 1998, administers the day-to-day activities of the National Grasslands in 

North Dakota and northwestern South Dakota. Of the roughly 100 permanent employees assigned to the unit to meet its mandated multiple use mission, there are 

over 25 natural resource management specialists and technicians administering the 

range program. Collectively, they have 200 plus years of grassland management experience. Of these employees, 18 have been educated in natural resource management programs at in-state institutions of higher learning, including North Dakota 

State University (NDSU) and Dickinson State University. Four previously held positions with NDSU’s Agricultural Experiment Station. 

The notice published in the Federal Register on August 19, 2005, allows for a 120- 

day public comment period on the Interim Directives and the proposed new direction. All of the directives, as well as the proposed new direction, are available to 

the public at http://www.fs.fed.us/rangelands. 

PROPOSED NEW DIRECTION

Eight items have been identified as proposed new direction and are largely contained in Chapter 10, Term Grazing Permits and Chapter 20, Grazing Agreements 

referenced at FSH 2209.13. The items are as follows: 

Term Grazing Permits, FSH 2209.13, Chapter 10, Section 16.3 

This proposed provision explains the contents of a notice of non-compliance letter 

and when it should be issued. This direction was the result of a Ninth Circuit court 

order which was implemented several years ago. It was initially implemented 

through a letter of direction to the regions and forests with the anticipation of inclusion in the national handbook. 

Term Grazing Permits, FSH 2209.13, Chapter 10, Section 16.4 

This proposed provision would establish uniform guidelines for the suspension 

and cancellation of term grazing permits. These proposed guidelines are designed 

to provide consistency on administrative actions for non-compliance with the terms 

and conditions of the term grazing permit, promote compliance with the terms and 

conditions of the permit, and provide a fair approach to managing non-compliance. 

Currently, there is variation among Forest Service units in applying administrative 

actions in similar situations. These guidelines provide for the authorized officer to 

use discretion to address the varied conditions and circumstances that might be encountered in administering term grazing permits. The guidelines are a starting 

point for a Forest Service line officer to determine an appropriate course of action 

to resolve violations of a term grazing permit based on the facts and circumstances 

of the specific situation. 

Term Grazing Permits, FSH 2209.13, Chapter 10, Section 17.1 

This proposed provision would expand the maximum period of nonuse for personal 

convenience from 3 to 4 years and sets timeframes for the use of the personal convenience nonuse. Personal convenience nonuse may be used for up to 3 consecutive 

years and for no more than 4 years within a 10-year period. The Forest Service also 

provides for nonuse for resource protection. Nonuse for resource protection is not 

counted against nonuse for personal convenience. 

Grazing Agreements, FSH 2209.13, Chapter 20, Section 21.1 

This proposed provision would establish a consistent process to waive a Forest 

Service term grazing permit in favor of a grazing association-issued term grazing 

permit. If a holder of a Forest Service-issued term grazing permit wants to join a 

grazing association and convert the Forest Service-issued permit to an associationissued term grazing permit, this section would provide a consistent process by which 

the action can occur. 

Grazing Agreements, FSH 2209.13, Chapter 20, Section 21.2 

This proposed provision would establish a consistent process to waive a grazing 

association-issued term grazing permit in favor of a Forest Service-issued term grazing permit. If a member of a grazing association wants to leave a grazing association and convert the grazing association-issued term grazing permit to a Forest 

Service issued term grazing permit, this section would provide a consistent process. 

Grazing Agreements, FSH 2209.13, Chapter 20, Section 22 

This proposed provision would establish a standard form for all grazing agreements on both National Grasslands (Exhibit 01) and National Forests (Exhibit 02). 

Grazing agreements are a type of term grazing permit. As such, the language in 
79 

the grazing agreement needs to be standardized to allow for consistent administration. 

USDA–FOREST SERVICE EXHIBIT 1 FS–2200–135 (2/05) 

GRAZING AGREEMENT FOR GRAZING ASSOCIATIONS OPERATING

ON NATIONAL GRASSLANDS

(REFERENCE FSH 2209.13, CH. 20) 

PERMITTEE NUMBER

PERMIT NUMBER

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

U.S. FOREST SERVICE 

AND 

llll GRAZING ASSOCIATION OR GRAZING DISTRICT 

GRAZING AGREEMENT # lllllll 

THIS GRAZING AGREEMENT IS BETWEEN THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE, AN 

AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (HEREINAFTER ‘‘THE FOREST SERVICE’’), AND THE lllll GRAZING ASSOCIATION OR GRAZING DISTRICT (HEREINAFTER ‘‘THE ASSOCIATION’’), A GRAZING COOPERATIVE ESTABLISHED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF 

llll. 

THIS AGREEMENT IS FOR THE ANNUAL PERMITTED USE OF UP TO ll ANIMAL UNIT MONTHS OF GRAZING ON THAT PORTION OF THE lllll NATIONAL GRASSLAND IN lllll COUNTY(IES) AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBITS A–F ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE 

HEREIN. 

A. DEFINITIONS. 

1. Administrative Costs. A type of expenditure and land use practice that may be 

used to reduce the fee for grazing on national grasslands covered by this agreement. 

Administrative costs are those costs that would otherwise be borne by the Forest 

Service if it directly administered the grazing permits of association members, and 

may include routine administrative and clerical expenses incurred by the association 

related to activities like issuing grazing permits, collecting grazing fees, monitoring 

livestock use, enforcing permit terms and conditions, and keeping records. Administrative costs must be approved by the Forest Service authorized officer in advance 

and may include but are not limited to expenses incurred by the association for salaries and benefits, payroll taxes, postage, copying, depreciation, office space, utilities, 

legal and accountant fees, and directors’ expenses related to administering the 

agreement. 

2. Allotment. An area of land represented on a map, which is designated for livestock grazing and comprises a logical grazing management unit. An allotment can 

be comprised of both NFS lands and non-NFS lands. Permits are issued for allotments or portions of allotments. 

3. Allotment Management Plan. A document that implements a decision through 

specifying the program of action designed to reach a given set of objectives for an 

allotment. It is prepared in consultation with the association and: 

i. Prescribes the manner in and extent to which livestock operations will be conducted in order to meet the multiple-use, sustained yield, economic, and other 

needs and objectives as determined for the lands involved; 

ii. Describes the location, ownership, and general specifications for the rangeland improvements in place, or to be installed and maintained, on the land 

to meet the livestock grazing and other objectives of land management; and 

iii. Contains such other provisions relating to livestock grazing and other objectives as may be prescribed by the authorized officer, consistent with applicable law. 
80 

3. Animal Unit (AU). One mature (1,000 pounds) cow or the equivalent based 

upon average forage consumption of 26 pounds of dry matter per day. Five sheep 

or goats are the general equivalent of one cow. 

4. Animal Unit Month (AUM). The amount of feed or forage required by an animal 

unit for one month. 

5. Annual Operating Provisions (AOPs). Detailed Forest Service approved provisions developed by the association for livestock grazing administration to be implemented in a given year on a given allotment. AOPs are based on the AMP and may 

address the number of livestock permitted to graze, season of use, responsibilities 

for improvement construction or maintenance, and pasture rotation schedules. 

6. Association Administered Lands. Lands administered by the association for 

livestock use including, but not limited to: private, State, other agency, and NFS 

lands. 

7. Association Controlled Lands. Private or State lands leased, owned, or controlled by the association by a member or non-member for administration of grazing 

activities and management purposes. 

8. Association-Issued Temporary Grazing Permit. A grazing permit issued by the 

association to a member or a non-member for a period not to exceed 1 year, and 

which has no priority for issuance upon expiration. 

9. Association-Issued Term Grazing Permit. A grazing permit issued by the association to a member, authorizing livestock grazing on certain lands covered by this 

agreement for a specific period not to exceed ten years or the expiration date of the 

agreement, whichever is shorter. The holder has priority for receipt of a new permit 

upon expiration of the previous term permit provided the holder has fully complied 

with the expiring permit’s terms and conditions. 

10. Cancellation. The action taken to permanently invalidate a grazing permit in 

whole or in part. 

11. Conservation Practices. The protection, planning, land treatment, and improvement measures necessary for proper use of NFS lands managed under the provisions of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 USC 1011), and required of the 

holder of a grazing agreement or grazing permit. 

12. Excess Livestock. Any livestock owned or controlled by the holder of a grazing 

permit issued by the grazing association, but grazing on NFS lands in greater numbers, or at times or places other than that provided in the association-issued grazing 

permit, grazing agreement, or on the bill for collection. 

13. Forest Service Policies and Procedures. Those policies and procedures established by the Chief of the Forest Service (and supplemented by the regional forester 

and forest/grassland supervisor) in the Forest Service Directive System for use, 

management, and protection of NFS lands. With respect to rangeland management 

and the administration of livestock grazing on NFS lands, Forest Service policies 

and procedures are set forth in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2200, Rangeland Management and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2209.13, Grazing Permit Administration Handbook. 

14. Grazing Agreement. A type of term grazing permit. It authorizes eligible associations organized under State law to graze livestock on NFS lands and includes 

provisions for the associations to issue association-issued grazing permits to association members ad administer the permits in conformance with applicable law, regulation, LMP and AMP direction, the terms and conditions of the grazing agreement 

and the association’s rules of management. 

15. Grazing Bill (Bill for Collection). The amount paid by the association to the 

forest in return for the privilege of grazing livestock on the national grasslands covered by the agreement. Determine the grazing fee by taking the grazing value and 

subtracting up to 75 percent of that value for expenses incurred by the association 

in connection with land use practices approved by the Forest Service. 

16. Grazing Fee. The annual charge per head month for grazing use on NFS 

lands. Grazing fees are also the total amount paid by the association to the Forest 

Service for the privilege of grazing livestock on lands covered by the grazing agreement and is the amount shown on the bill for collection. The grazing fee is determined by taking the grazing value and subtracting up to 75 percent of that value 

for expenses incurred by the association in connection with land use practices approved by the Forest Service. 

17. Grazing Value. The annual value of grazing use (total head months) against 

which land use practices may be applied on national grasslands and conservation 

practices on Eastern forests to determine the annual grazing fee. 

18. Head Month. One month’s use and occupancy of the rangeland by one weaned 

or adult cow (with or without calf), bull steer, heifer, horse, burro, mule, bison, ewe 

(with or without lambs), ram, or goat. 
81 

19. Land Management Plan (LMP). Required by the National Forest Management 

Act of 1976, is developed for each unit of the NFS, and provides direction for the 

management of the lands and resources of that unit. The lllllll LMP, 

adopted in llllll, establishes the kind of management practices that may 

occur and the timing and location of these practices. 

20. Land Use Practices (LUPs). Those Forest Service approved administrative 

costs and conservation practices undertaken by the association as part of its management of the livestock grazing activities on the national grasslands covered by the 

agreement. Satisfactory completion of Forest Service approved LUPs will result in 

a reduction in the grazing fee owed by the association to the Forest Service. 

21. National Forest System (NFS) Lands. Federally owned forest, range, and related lands and resources throughout the United States and its territories. NFS 

lands include all national forest lands reserved or withdrawn from the public domain of the United States, all national forest lands acquired through purchase, exchange, donation, or other means, the national grasslands and land utilization 

projects administered under Title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 

USC 1011), and other lands, waters, or interests therein which are administered by 

the Forest Service or are designated for administration through the Forest Service 

as a part of the system. 

22. National Grasslands. Part of the NFS that refers to those lands acquired and 

administered by the United States under Title III of the Bankhead Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 USC 1011), other statutes, Executive Order 10046 (amended by Executive 

Order 10175 and Executive Order 10322 and revoked in part by Executive Order 

10844) which are now permanently held and administered by the Forest Service. 

23. Rules of Management (ROM). The set of Forest Service approved policies, procedures, and practices developed by the association for their use in administering 

livestock grazing on the lands covered by this agreement. 

24. Suspension. Temporary withholding of an agreement or permit privilege, in 

whole or in part. 

25. Termination. Ending an agreement or permit without questioning whether the 

terms and conditions contained in the agreement or permit have been broken by either side. 

26. Unauthorized Livestock. Any cattle, sheep, goat, hog, bison, or equine not defined as a wild free-roaming horse or burro, which is not provided by permit (or bill 

for collection). Noncommercial pack and saddle stock used by recreationists, travelers, other forest and grassland visitors for occasional trips, and livestock trailed 

over an established driveway when there is no overnight stop on NFS land do not 

fall under this definition. 

27. Unauthorized Use Rate. The fee charged for excess or unauthorized livestock 

use. 

B. PURPOSE

The purpose of this agreement is to: 

1. Authorize the association to administer the permitted livestock grazing activities of its members on the lands covered by this agreement consistent with applicable Federal law, regulation, Forest Service policies and procedures, and direction in 

the LMP and AMPs. 

2. Extend sound practices of rangeland resource management through demonstration and by working with other Federal, State, local, or private landowners to consistently administer livestock grazing activities across rangelands regardless of the 

ownerships involved. 

C. THE PARTIES JOINTLY AGREE THAT

1. The principal objective of this agreement is to secure sound resource management on all lands covered by this agreement. 

2. They will cooperate with each other and assist individuals, local, State, and 

Federal agencies to demonstrate sound and practical principles of land use and resource management on the lands covered by this agreement. 

3. The vegetation resource will be developed to its reasonable sustainable potential to provide for all values and uses, which include, but are not limited to, livestock grazing. 

4. Livestock grazing is one of the many recognized multiple uses that occur on 

the NFS lands covered by this agreement. 

5. All of the multiple use activities occurring on the lands covered by this agreement must be carried out consistent with the applicable laws and regulations governing the occupancy and use of NFS lands. 
82 

6. The Forest Service’s authority to permit other uses or activities besides livestock grazing on the lands covered by this agreement is not affected by this agreement. 

7. The Forest Service is responsible for the authorization and administration of 

grazing on NFS lands in accordance with applicable Federal law, regulation, Forest 

Service policies and procedures, and LMP direction. 

8. Through this agreement, the association agrees to administer livestock grazing 

activities for association-issued grazing permits on those NFS lands shown in exhibit A and described in exhibit B. Administration shall be in accordance with applicable Federal law, regulation, Forest Service policies and procedures, and LMP direction. 

D. FOREST SERVICE RESPONSIBILITIES

The Forest Service will: 

1. Make available to the association the NFS lands shown in exhibit A and described in exhibit B and the rangeland improvements described in exhibit D for livestock grazing purposes. 

2. Determine permitted numbers and seasons of use for the NFS lands shown in 

exhibit A and described in exhibits B and F in accordance with Forest Service policies and procedures. 

3. Assist the association with the determination of permitted numbers and seasons of use for the association controlled lands described in exhibit C. 

4. Notify the association on or before the ll day of lllll of each year of: 

a. Required LUPs for the upcoming season of use and how those LUPs will be 

considered in the establishment of the grazing fee. 

b. The estimated grazing fee to be paid for livestock use on the NFS lands 

shown in exhibit A and described in exhibit B for the upcoming season of use 

taking into account the estimated costs of Forest Service approved LUPs on 

the NFS lands described in exhibit B. 

c. Additional fees or credits accrued for the past grazing season was not reflected in the estimated grazing fee paid at the beginning of the season. Such 

unanticipated fees or credits may include adjustments in actual grazing use, 

where grazing was greater than or less than originally authorized (final Forest Service fee determination). 

5. Prepare AMPs and AOPs in coordination with the association and the affected 

member(s). 

6. Review and approve the ROM developed by the association if they are consistent with applicable law, regulation, Forest Service policies and procedures, LMP 

direction, and the terms and conditions of this agreement. 

7. Perform improvement work not associated with livestock grazing that is related 

to management of other resources as deemed necessary or desirable on NFS lands 

other than those conservation practices that are the responsibility of the association 

under this agreement. 

8. Reserve the right (but not the obligation) to take appropriate administrative 

action or to prosecute any act or omission involving violations of Federal law, regulation, or Forest Service policies or procedures pertaining to livestock grazing on 

NFS lands including, but not limited to, excess and unauthorized use or noncompliance with the terms and conditions of this agreement or the ROM. 

9. Authorize reductions in the fee charged for grazing on national grasslands described in exhibit B by as much as 75 percent for Forest Service approved administrative costs, conservation practices, or a combination of the two in accordance with 

agency procedures set forth in chapters 20 and 80 of FSH 2209.13 (sec. 84). 

10. Require the association to implement conservation practices on association administered lands as necessary to obtain proper livestock use and rangeland resource 

management. 

11. Approve proposed conservation practices that are reasonably priced and will 

improve proper livestock use and are in accordance with LMP, the AMP, and resource management. 

12. Furnish the association with appropriate technical assistance necessary for 

implementation of required conservation practices and provide updated specifications as they become available. 

13. Comply with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and other relevant laws 

and regulations when responding to requests from the public for information pertaining to grazing administered by the association on national grasslands lands covered by this agreement. 
83 

14. Audit the association’s records at least once every 5 years to ensure that the 

association is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this agreement and 

the ROM. 

15. Agree to review disputes between an association member and the association 

only after the affected parties have made a good faith effort to resolve the dispute 

between them. 

16. Be responsible for any and all other activities related to the administration 

of livestock grazing and all other uses or activities on the national grasslands covered by this agreement except those specifically delegated to the association. 

E. ASSOCIATION RESPONSIBILITIES

The association will: 

1. Develop Rules of Management (ROM) to facilitate administration of the livestock grazing activities authorized by the Forest Service under this agreement. 

2. Submit the ROM to the Forest Service for review and approval. 

3. Issue association-issued term grazing permits for the lands covered by this 

agreement for a period not to exceed 10 years or the date of expiration of this agreement, whichever is shorter. Issue association-issued temporary grazing permits as 

provided for in the ROM. The current association members are listed in exhibit E. 

4. Administer association issued grazing permits in conformance with applicable 

Federal law, regulation, policy and procedure, LMP and AMP direction, and the Forest Service approved ROM. 

5. Provide input to the Forest Service regarding the development of AMPs and 

AOPs for the grazing activity covered by this agreement and implement the Forest 

Service approved AMPs. 

6. Regularly monitor livestock grazing activities authorized by the Forest Service 

under this agreement to ensure they are consistent with direction in the LMP, 

AMPs, AOPs, and the ROM. 

7. Strive to integrate and consolidate association controlled lands in order to create natural management units and demonstrate sound land management programs 

and practices. 

8. Pay all fees due the United States under this agreement in a timely fashion. 

(Fees may be paid in two installments if provided in the ROM.) 

9. Identify potential land use practices necessary to facilitate livestock grazing 

covered by this agreement and submit a list of such practices to the Forest Service 

for review and approval. 

10. Implement required land use practices approved by the Forest Service in a 

timely fashion. 

11. Maintain existing improvements listed in exhibit D in a timely manner so that 

they serve their intended purpose and last for their expected lifetime. 

12. Submit to the Forest Service by the ll day of lllll of each year, completed Certification of Costs of Required Conservation Practices and Actual Administrative Costs forms with supporting information as may be required by the Forest 

Service. 

13. Cooperate in livestock counting, marking, or ear-tagging programs as deemed 

necessary. 

14. Take all reasonable precautions to prevent unauthorized livestock use. 

15. Cooperate with the Forest Service in the prosecution or defense of any action 

related to the administration of livestock grazing on the lands covered by this agreement. 

16. Maintain and retain records for the administration of livestock grazing activities authorized by the Forest Service under this agreement as if the Forest Service 

were directly administering association-issued term grazing permits. Said records 

might include, but are not limited to: association member eligibility and qualification requirements, association-issued grazing permits, documents pertaining to the 

investigation and enforcement of association-issued grazing permit terms and conditions, bills for collection, actual use records, monitoring, administration of use, and 

land use practice costs. 

17. Separate association records unrelated to the administration of livestock grazing authorized by the Forest Service under this agreement from those records described in # 16 above. 

18. Make available to the Forest Service upon request the records identified in 

# 16 above for inspection and copying. There shall be no deletions or redactions in 

the records and they shall be provided to the Forest Service within the existing Forest Service approved administration costs. Should copying result in a significant, unanticipated cost to the association, the Forest Service shall allow additional administration costs or pay the association. 
84 

19. Fully cooperate with the Forest Service in the timely processing of Freedom 

of Information Act (FOIA) requests for agency records pertaining to the livestock 

grazing activities authorized by the Forest Service under this agreement that are 

in the possession of the association. 

20. Promptly investigate allegations of violations of association-issued grazing permit terms and conditions by association members. 

21. Report to the Forest Service all claims of alleged association-issued permit violations and the outcome of the association’s investigation of those claims. 

22. Where appropriate, take action, following the investigation of alleged permit 

violations, to suspend or cancel association-issued term grazing permits, in whole 

or in part. Where taken, permit action should be in cooperation with the Forest 

Service and be consistent with the policies set forth in section 16. 

23. Attempt to resolve disputes between association members or between an association member and the association before requesting assistance from the Forest 

Service. 

24. Provide for Forest Service entry on association controlled lands to determine 

whether the livestock grazing activities provided by association-issued grazing permits are being carried out in conformance with applicable Federal law, regulation, 

Forest Service policies and procedures, and the terms and conditions of this agreement. 

25. Ensure all association members comply with qualifying base property and livestock ownership requirements in the ROM. 

26. Prepare as necessary, with Forest Service assistance, an annual plan of work 

for each employee of the association. 

F. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

1. Holders of association-issued term grazing permits must satisfy, at a minimum, 

the same eligibility and qualification requirements that apply to the holders of Forest Service term grazing permits, unless otherwise provided in this agreement and 

the attached Rules of Management. 

2. This agreement shall be issued for ten years unless the national grasslands 

shown in exhibit A and described in exhibit B is pending disposal or will be devoted 

to a different public purpose that precludes livestock grazing prior to the end of 10 

years, or if the Forest Service determines it will be in the best interest of sound 

land management to specify a shorter term. 

3. Association-issued term grazing permits may be issued for up to ten years but 

may not extend beyond the expiration date of this agreement. 

4. This agreement may be terminated immediately, or modified by the Forest 

Service if the national grasslands shown in exhibit A and described in exhibit B are 

required for military or national security purposes. 

5. This agreement may be terminated by either party, with or without cause, six 

months after sending written notice to the other party; if the 6 month period expires 

between May 1 and November 30, the effective date of the termination will be February 28 of the following year. 

6. This agreement may be amended at any time by the mutual consent of the parties. 

7. This agreement may be amended by the Forest Service thirty (30) days after 

written notice to the association in order to bring the agreement into conformance 

with changes in law, regulation, policy, LMP direction, range improvement status, 

or grazing capacity associated with a change in the lands administered by the association. 

8. Violation of any of the terms and conditions of this agreement may result in 

the suspension, cancellation or termination of this agreement. 

9. Failure of the association to promptly inspect and enforce where necessary, alleged violations of this agreement or association-issued grazing permit terms and 

conditions may lead to action by the Forest Service to suspend, cancel, or terminate 

this agreement. 

10. This agreement may not exceed 10 years in length and expires on the 28th 

day of February 20——, unless terminated as provided above or cancelled in accordance with applicable Federal law or regulations. 

11. The permanent improvements on NFS lands identified in exhibit D are the 

property of the United States unless specifically designated otherwise or authorized 

by a Forest Service issued special use permit. In some cases, the improvements constructed by the grazing association may be entitled to compensation based on the 

extent of the association’s financial contribution. However, no portion of the improvement funded by conservation practices shall be eligible for compensation (FSH 

2209.13, chapter 70). 
85 

12. This agreement is subject to all rules and regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture and may be suspended or cancelled, in whole or in part, or terminated for 

noncompliance therewith. 

13. Any disagreement between the association and the Forest Service regarding 

an interpretation of the Secretary’s rules and regulations shall be resolved in favor 

of the Forest Service’s interpretation. 

14. If the association disagrees with a decision by the Forest Service authorized 

officer pertaining to the administration of grazing on the lands covered by this 

agreement, it can request further review of the decision by the Forest Service authorized officer. The association may present its case in writing, orally, or both. If 

the association remains dissatisfied after this review, it may file an administrative 

appeal or request mediation in accordance with 36 CFR part 251. 

15. If an association member disagrees with an association decision, the member 

must first seek review of the decision by the association. Association members may 

not appeal association decisions related to the grazing use distributed under an association-issued permit pursuant to 36 CFR part 251. Review by a Forest Service 

authorized officer may be sought only seeking review by the association. Association 

members may not appeal Forest Service decisions related to the grazing authorized 

by the Forest Service under this agreement pursuant to 36 CFR part 251. 

16. No member of, or delegate to, Congress shall be admitted to any share or part 

of this agreement or to any benefit that may arise, unless it be made with a corporation for its general benefit. 

17. The association shall comply with the non-discrimination provisions of Title 

VI of the Civil Rights Act, applicable USDA regulations, and Executive Order 11246. 

18. Exhibits to this agreement include: 

Exhibit A. Map of All Lands Covered by this Agreement 

Exhibit B. List of National Forest System Lands Covered by this Agreement 

Exhibit C. List of State, Private, and Other Lands Covered by this Agreement 

Exhibit D. List of Improvements Owned by the Forest Service 

Exhibit E. Association Membership List 

Exhibit F. List of Permitted AUMs for National Forest System, State, Private, 

and Other Lands on Allotments Covered by this Agreement 

Signed this the ll day of lllll, 20ll 

llllll 

President 

llllll Grazing Association 

[MAILING ADDRESS] 

Signed this the ll day of lllll, 20ll 

llllllll 

Forest/Grassland Supervisor 

lllll National Forest/National Grassland 

[MAILING ADDRESS] 
86 

USDA–FOREST SERVICE EXHIBIT 2 FS–2200–136 (02/05) 

GRAZING AGREEMENT FOR GRAZING ASSOCIATIONS OPERATING

ON NATIONAL FORESTS

(REFERENCE FSH 2209.13, CH. 20) 

PERMITTEE NUMBER

PERMIT NUMBER

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

U.S. FOREST SERVICE 

AND 

llllll GRAZING ASSOCIATION OR GRAZING DISTRICT 

GRAZING AGREEMENT # llllll 

THIS GRAZING AGREEMENT IS BETWEEN THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE, AN 

AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (HEREINAFTER ‘‘THE FOREST SERVICE’’), AND THE llllll GRAZING ASSOCIATION OR GRAZING DISTRICT (HEREINAFTER ‘‘THE ASSOCIATION’’), A 

GRAZING COOPERATIVE ESTABLISHED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE 

OF llllll. 

THIS AGREEMENT IS FOR THE ANNUAL PERMITTED USE OF llllll 

ANIMAL UNIT MONTHS OF GRAZING ON THAT PORTION OF THE 

llllll NATIONAL FOREST IN llllll COUNTY (IES) AS SET 

FORTH IN EXHIBITS A-F ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE HEREIN. 

A. DEFINITIONS

1. Allotment. An area of land represented on a map, which is designated for livestock grazing and comprises a logical grazing management unit. An allotment can 

be comprised of both NFS lands and non-NFS lands. Permits are issued for allotments or portions of allotments. 

2. Allotment Management Plan. A document that implements a decision through 

specifying the program of action designed to reach a given set of objectives for an 

allotment. It is prepared in consultation with the association and: 

i. Prescribes the manner in and extent to which livestock operations will be conducted in order to meet the multiple-use, sustained yield, economic, and other 

needs and objectives as determined for the lands involved; 

ii. Describes the location, ownership, and general specifications for the rangeland improvements in place, or to be installed and maintained, on the land 

to meet the livestock grazing and other objectives of land management; and 

iii. Contains such other provisions relating to livestock grazing and other objectives as may be prescribed by the authorized officer, consistent with applicable law. 

3. Animal Unit (AU). One mature (1,000 pounds) cow or the equivalent based 

upon average forage consumption of 26 pounds of dry matter per day. Five sheep 

or goats are the general equivalent of one cow. 

4. Animal Unit Month (AUM). The amount of feed or forage required by an animal 

unit for one month. 

5. Annual Operating Provisions (AOPs). Detailed Forest Service approved instructions developed by the association for livestock grazing administration to be implemented in a given year on a given allotment. AOPs are based on the AMP and may 

address the number of livestock permitted to graze, season of use, responsibilities 

for improvement construction or maintenance, and pasture rotation schedules. 

6. Association Administered Lands. Lands administered by the association for 

livestock use including, but not limited to, private, State, other agency, and NFS 

lands. 
87 

7. Association Controlled Lands. Private or State lands leased, owned, or controlled by the association by a member or non-member for administration of grazing 

activities and management purposes. 

8. Association-Issued Temporary Grazing Permit. A grazing permit issued by the 

association to a member or a non-member for a period not to exceed 1 year, and 

which has no priority for issuance upon expiration. 

9. Association-Issued Term Grazing Permit. A grazing permit issued by the association to a member authorizing livestock grazing on certain lands covered by this 

agreement for a specific period not to exceed ten years or the expiration date of this 

agreement, whichever is shorter. The holder has priority for receipt of a new permit 

upon expiration of the previous term permit provided the holder has fully complied 

with the expiring permit’s terms and conditions. 

10. Cancellation. The action taken to permanently invalidate a grazing permit in 

whole or in part. The canceling party retains any remedy for breach. 

11. Excess Livestock. Any livestock owned or controlled by the holder of a grazing 

permit issued by the grazing association, but grazing on NFS lands in greater numbers, or at times or places other than that provided in the association-issued grazing 

permit, grazing agreement, or on the bill for collection. 

12. Forest Service Policies and Procedures. Those policies and procedures established by the Chief of the Forest Service (and supplemented by the regional forester 

and forest supervisor) in the Forest Service Directive System for use, management, 

and protection of NFS lands. With respect to rangeland management and the administration of livestock grazing on NFS lands, these policies and procedures are 

set forth in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2200, Rangeland Management and Forest 

Service Handbook (FSH) 2209.13, Grazing Permit Administration Handbook. 

13. Grazing Agreement. A type of term grazing permit. It authorizes eligible associations organized under State law to graze livestock on NFS lands and includes 

provisions for the associations to issue association-issued grazing permits to association members and administer the permits in conformance with applicable law, regulation, LMP and AMP direction, the terms and conditions of the grazing agreement 

and the association’s rules of management. 

14. Grazing Fee is the annual charge per head month for grazing use on NFS 

lands. It is also the total amount paid by the association to the Forest Service for 

the privilege of grazing livestock on lands covered by the grazing agreement and is 

the amount shown on the bill for collection. 

15. Head Month. One month’s use and occupancy of the rangeland by one weaned 

or adult cow (with or without calf), bull steer, heifer, horse, burro, mule, bison, ewe 

(with or without lambs), ram, or goat. 

16. Land Management Plan (LMP). Required by the National Forest Management 

Act of 1976, is developed for each unit of the NFS, and provides direction for the 

management of the lands and resources of that unit. The llllll LMP, adopted in llllll, establishes the kind of management practices that may occur 

and the timing and location of these practices. 

17. National Forest System (NFS) Lands. Federally owned forest, range, and related lands and resources throughout the United States and its territories. NFS 

lands include all national forest lands reserved or withdrawn from the public domain of the United States, all national forest lands acquired through purchase, exchange, donation, or other means, the national grasslands and land utilization 

projects administered under Title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, and 

other lands, waters, or interests therein which are administered by the Forest Service or are designated for administration through the Forest Service as a part of the 

system. 

18. Rules of Management (ROM). The set of Forest Service approved policies, procedures, and practices developed by the association for their use in administering 

livestock grazing on the lands covered by this agreement. 

19. Suspension. Temporary withholding of an agreement or permit privilege, in 

whole or in part. 

20. Termination. Ending an agreement or permit without questioning whether the 

terms and conditions contained in the agreement or permit have been broken by either side. 

21. Unauthorized Livestock. Any cattle, sheep, goat, hog, bison, or equine not defined as a wild free-roaming horse or burro, which is not provided by permit (or bill 

for collection). Noncommercial pack and saddle stock used by recreationists, travelers, other forest and grassland visitors for occasional trips, and livestock trailed 

over an established driveway when there is no overnight stop on National Forest 

System land do not fall under this definition. 

22. Unauthorized Use Rate. The fee charge for excess or unauthorized livestock 

use. 
88 

B. PURPOSE

The purpose of this agreement is to: 

1. Authorize the association to administer the permitted livestock grazing activities of its members on the lands covered by this agreement consistent with applicable Federal law, regulation, Forest Service policies and procedures, and direction in 

the LMPs and AMPs. 

2. Extend sound practices of rangeland resource management through demonstration and by working with other Federal, State, local, or private landowners to administer livestock grazing activities consistently across rangelands regardless of the 

ownerships involved. 

C. THE PARTIES JOINTLY AGREE THAT

1. The principal objective of this agreement is to secure sound resource management on all lands covered by this agreement. 

2. They will cooperate with each other and assist individuals, local, State, and 

Federal agencies to demonstrate sound and practical principles of land use and resource management on the lands covered by this agreement. 

3. The vegetation resource will be developed to its reasonable sustainable potential to provide for all values and uses, which include but are not limited to, livestock 

grazing. 

4. Livestock grazing is one of the many recognized multiple uses that occurs on 

the NFS lands covered by this agreement. 

5. All of the multiple use activities occurring on the lands covered by this agreement must be carried out consistent with the applicable laws and regulations governing the occupancy and use of NFS lands. 

6. The Forest Service’s authority to permit other uses or activities besides livestock grazing on the lands covered by this agreement is not affected by this agreement. 

7. The Forest Service is responsible for the authorization and administration of 

grazing on NFS lands in accordance with applicable Federal law, regulation, Forest 

Service policies and procedures, and LMP direction. 

8. Through this agreement, the association agrees to administer livestock grazing 

activities for association-issued grazing permits on those NFS lands shown in exhibit A and described in exhibit B. Administration shall be in accordance with applicable Federal law, regulation, Forest Service policies and procedures, and LMP direction. 

D. FOREST SERVICE RESPONSIBILITIES

The Forest Service will: 

1. Make available to the association the NFS lands shown in exhibit A and described in exhibit B and the rangeland improvements described in exhibit D for livestock grazing purposes. 

2. Determine permitted numbers and seasons of use for the NFS lands shown in 

exhibit A and described in exhibits B and F in accordance with Forest Service policies and procedures. 

3. Assist the association in the determination of permitted numbers and seasons 

of use for the association controlled lands identified in exhibit C. 

4. Notify the association on or before the ll day of llllll of each year 

of the grazing fee to be paid for livestock use on the NFS lands identified in exhibit 

B planned for the upcoming season of use. Additional fees or credits accrued for the 

past grazing season is not reflected in the estimated grazing fee paid at the beginning of the season. Such unanticipated fees or credits may include adjustments in 

actual grazing use, where grazing was greater than or less than originally authorized (final Forest Service fee determination). 

5. Prepare AMPs and AOPs, in consultation and coordination with the association 

and the affected members(s). 

6. Review and approve the ROM developed by the association if they are consistent with applicable law, regulation, Forest Service policies and procedures, LMP 

direction, and the terms and conditions of this agreement. 

7. Perform improvement work, as deemed necessary or desirable on NFS lands, 

other than those improvements that are the responsibility of the association under 

this agreement. 

8. Reserve the right (but not the obligation) to take appropriate administrative 

action or to prosecute any act or omission involving violations of Federal law, regulation, or Forest Service policies or procedures pertaining to livestock grazing on 
89 

NFS lands including, but not limited to, excess and unauthorized use, or noncompliance with the terms and conditions of this agreement and the ROM. 

9. Require the association to implement appropriate structural and non-structural 

rangeland improvements on association administered lands that are necessary to obtain proper livestock use and resource management. 

10. Furnish the association with appropriate technical assistance necessary for 

implementation of required range improvements, and provide updated specifications 

as they become available. 

11. Comply with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and other relevant laws 

and regulations when responding to requests from the public for information pertaining to grazing administered by the association on NFS lands covered by this 

agreement. 

12. Audit the association’s records at least once every 5 years to ensure the association is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this agreement and the 

ROM. 

13. Agree to review disputes between association members or between an association member and the association only after the affected parties have made a good 

faith effort to resolve the dispute between them. 

14. Be responsible for any and all other activities related to the administration 

of livestock grazing and all other uses or activities on the NFS lands covered by this 

agreement except those specifically delegated to the association. 

E. ASSOCIATION RESPONSIBILITIES

The association will: 

1. Develop Rules of Management (ROM) to facilitate administration of the livestock grazing activities authorized by the Forest Service under this agreement. 

2. Submit the ROM to the Forest Service for review and approval. 

3. Issue association-issued term grazing permits on the lands covered by this 

agreement for a period not to exceed 10 years or the date of expiration of this agreement, whichever is shorter. Issue association-issued temporary grazing permits as 

provided for in the ROM. The current association members are listed in exhibit E. 

4. Administer association-issued term grazing permits in conformance with applicable Federal law, regulation, policy and procedure, LMP and AMP direction, and 

the Forest Service approved ROM. 

5. Provide input to the Forest Service regarding the development of AMPs and 

AOPs for the grazing activity covered by this agreement and implement the Forest 

Service approved AMPs and AOPs. 

6. Regularly monitor livestock grazing activities authorized by the Forest Service 

under this agreement to ensure they are consistent with direction in the LMP, 

AMPs, AOPs, and the ROM. 

7. Strive to integrate and consolidate association controlled lands in order to create natural management units and demonstrate sound land management programs 

and practices. 

8. Pay all fees due the United States under this agreement in a timely fashion. 

9. Identify potential land use practices necessary to facilitate livestock grazing 

covered by this agreement and submit a list of such practices to the Forest Service 

for review and approval. 

10. Implement and construct the rangeland improvements required by the Forest 

Service in a timely fashion. 

11. Maintain existing improvements listed in exhibit D in a timely manner so that 

they serve their intended purpose and last for their expected lifetime. 

12. Submit to the Forest Service by the ll day of llllll of each year, 

completed Certification of Costs of Required Conservation Practices form with supporting information as may be required by the Forest Service. 

13. Cooperate in livestock counting, marking, or ear tagging programs as deemed 

necessary. 

14. Take all reasonable precautions to prevent unauthorized livestock use. Cooperate with the Forest Service in the prosecution or defense of any action related to 

the administration of livestock grazing on the lands covered by this agreement, including charging for such use at the established unauthorized use rate. 

15. Cooperate with the Forest Service in the prosecution or defense of any action 

related to the administration of livestock grazing on the lands covered by this agreement. 

16. Maintain agency records related to the administration of livestock grazing activities authorized by the Forest Service under this agreement that would otherwise 

be retained by the Forest Service if it were directly administering livestock grazing 

through Forest Service term grazing permits. Said records might include, but are 
90 

not limited to: association member eligibility and qualification requirements, association-issued grazing permits, documents pertaining to the investigation and enforcement of association-issued grazing permit terms and conditions, bills for collection, and actual use records. 

17. Separate association records unrelated to the administration of livestock grazing authorized by the Forest Service under this agreement from those records described in #16 above. 

18. Make available to the Forest Service upon request, the records identified in 

#16 above for inspection and copying. There shall be no deletions or redactions in 

the records and they shall be provided to the Forest Service within the existing Forest Service approved administration costs. Should copying result in a significant, unanticipated cost to the association, the Forest Service shall allow additional administration costs or pay the association. 

19. Fully cooperate with the Forest Service in the timely processing of Freedom 

of Information Act (FOIA) requests for agency records pertaining to livestock grazing activities permitted under this agreement that are in the possession of the association. 

20. Promptly investigate allegations of violations of association-issued grazing permit terms and conditions by association members. 

21. Report to the Forest Service all claims of alleged association-issued permit violations and the outcome of the association’s investigation of those claims. 

22. Where appropriate, take action, following the investigation of alleged permit 

violations, to suspend or cancel association-issued grazing permits, in whole or in 

part, resulting from permit violations. Where taken, permit action should be in cooperation with the Forest Service and be consistent with the policies set forth in 

FSH 2209.13, section 16. 

23. Attempt to resolve disputes between association members or between an association member and the association before requesting assistance from the Forest 

Service. 

24. Provide for Forest Service entry on association controlled lands to determine 

whether the livestock grazing activities provided by association-issued grazing permits are being carried out in conformance with applicable Federal law, regulation, 

Forest Service policies and procedures, and the terms and conditions of this agreement. 

25. Take all reasonable precautions to prevent unauthorized livestock use. Cooperate with the Forest Service in the prosecution or defense of any action related to 

the administration of livestock grazing on the lands covered by this agreement, including charging for such use at the established unauthorized use rate. 

26. Ensure all association members comply with qualifying base property and livestock ownership requirements as set forth in Forest Service regulations, policies, 

and procedures. 

27. Prepare as necessary, with Forest Service assistance, an annual plan of work 

for each employee of the association. 

F. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

1. Holders of association-issued term grazing permits must satisfy the same eligibility and qualification requirements that apply to the holders of Forest Service 

term grazing permits. 

2. This agreement shall be issued for 10 years unless the NFS land shown in exhibit A and described in exhibit B is pending disposal or will be devoted to a public 

purpose that precludes livestock grazing prior to the end of 10 years, or if the Forest 

Service determines it will be in the best interest of sound land management to 

specify a shorter term. 

3. Association-issued term grazing permits may be issued for up to 10 years, but 

may not extend beyond the expiration date of this agreement. 

4. This agreement may be immediately terminated or modified by the Forest Service if the NFS land shown in exhibit A and described in exhibit B are required for 

military or national security purposes. 

5. This agreement may be terminated by either party, with or without cause, 6 

months after sending written notice to the other party; if the 6 month period expires 

between May 1 and October 31, the effective date of the termination will be December 31. 

6. This agreement may be amended at any time by the mutual consent of the parties. 

7. This agreement may be amended by the Forest Service 30 days after written 

notice to the association in order to bring the agreement into conformance with 

changes in law, regulation, policy, LMP direction, range improvement status, or 
91 

grazing capacity associated with a change in the lands administered by the association. 

8. Violation of any of the terms and conditions of this agreement may result in 

the suspension, cancellation, or termination of this agreement. 

9. Failure of the association to promptly inspect and enforce where necessary alleged violations of this agreement or association-issued grazing permit terms and 

conditions may lead to action by the Forest Service to suspend, cancel or terminate 

this agreement. 

10. This agreement may not exceed 10 years in length and expires on the 31st 

day of December 20 ——, unless terminated as provided for above or cancelled in 

accordance with applicable Federal law or regulations. 

11. The permanent improvements on NFS lands identified in exhibit D are the 

property of the United States unless specifically designated otherwise or authorized 

by a Forest Service issued special use permit. In some cases, the improvements constructed by the grazing association may be entitled to compensation based on the 

extent of the association’s financial contribution. However, no portion of the improvement funded by conservation practices shall be eligible for compensation (FSH 

2209.13, ch. 70). 

12. This agreement is subject to all rules and regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture and may be suspended or cancelled, in whole or in part, or terminated for 

noncompliance therewith. 

13. Any disagreement between the association and the Forest Service regarding 

an interpretation of the Secretary’s rules and regulations shall be resolved in favor 

of the Forest Service’s interpretation. 

14. If the association disagrees with a decision by the Forest Service authorized 

officer pertaining to the administration of grazing on the lands covered by this 

agreement, it can request further review of the decision by the Forest Service authorized officer. The association may present its case in writing, orally, or both. If 

the association remains dissatisfied after this review, it may file an administrative 

appeal or request mediation in accordance with 36 CFR part 251. 

15. If an association member disagrees with an association decision, the member 

must first seek review of the decision by the association. Association members may 

not appeal association decisions related to the grazing use distributed under an association-issued permit pursuant to 36 CFR part 251. Review by a Forest Service 

authorized officer may be sought only seeking review by the association. Association 

members may not appeal Forest Service decisions related to the grazing authorized 

by the Forest Service under this agreement pursuant to 36 CFR part 251. 

16. No member of, or delegate to, Congress shall be admitted to any share or part 

of this agreement or to any benefit that may arise, unless it be made with a corporation for its general benefit. 

17. The association shall comply with the non-discrimination provisions of Title 

VI of the Civil Rights Act, applicable USDA regulations, and Executive Order 11246. 

18. Exhibits to this agreement include: 

Exhibit A. Map of All Lands Covered by this Agreement 

Exhibit B. List of National Forest System Lands Covered by this Agreement 

Exhibit C. List of State, Private, and Other Lands Covered by this Agreement 

Exhibit D. List of Improvements Owned by the Forest Service 

Exhibit E. Association Membership List 

Exhibit F. List of Permitted AUMs for National Forest System, State, Private, 

and Other Lands on Allotments Covered by this Agreement 

Signed this the ll day of llllll, 20ll 

llllllll 

President 

llllll Grazing Association/Grazing District 

[MAILING ADDRESS] 

Signed this the ll day of llllll, 20ll 
92 

lllllll 

Forest/Grassland Supervisor 

llllll National Forest/National Grassland 

[MAILING ADDRESS] 

Grazing Agreements, FSH 2209.13, Chapter 20, Section 24.11 

This proposed provision would establish a 7-year limit on leasing of property to 

satisfy base property ownership qualification requirements for association-issued 

term grazing permits on national grasslands. We propose that 7 years is a sufficient 

time to acquire ownership of necessary base property. 

Grazing Agreements, FSH 2209.13, Chapter 20, Section 24.12 

This proposed provision would establish a 7-year limit on share livestock agreements to satisfy livestock ownership qualification requirements for associationissued term grazing permits on national grasslands. We propose that 7 years is sufficient time for the permittee to acquire full individual livestock ownership. 

Proposed Sections 24.11 and 24.12 propose a 7-year limit on share livestock and 

leasing of base property. This limit is intended to ensure fair and consistent policy 

to all who qualify. 

CONCLUSION

The Forest Service recognizes and values the benefits livestock grazing permittees 

contribute to the management of National Forests and Grasslands. We believe the 

proposed amendments to the Forest Service Rangeland Manual and Handbook meet 

both management and permittee needs. However it is our intent to make every effort to engage the public by providing information on the proposed directives and 

seeking comments from ranchers, grazing associations, state and local officials, Tribal governments and other stakeholders. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. We would be happy to answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have. 

Senator DORGAN. Well, Ms. Kimbell, thank you very much. Let 

me begin a series of questions, some of which will come from testimony that will be submitted later today which I have read because 

it was submitted to the committee before this morning. 

You talk about the offending language as one sentence that appears twice. I’m going to talk about that and more expansive views 

what is offending. 

First of all let me ask, how did this happen? I mean, first of all, 

I appreciate the fact that you have withdrawn it at this point, but 

how does it happen that this gets through the process? 

I assume you, Mr. Pieper and others, Ms. Kaiser, would know 

language that’s going to effect something that’s been going on for 

70 years, the leasing policies that are so important to ranchers in 

North Dakota, the changing of that as you would propose would 

cause a fire storm of protest. So how did that happen? 

Ms. KIMBELL. We’ve been working on the revision of, as I said, 

16 chapters of the Forest Service manuals and handbooks for quite 

a number of years. 

The Dakota Prairie personnel, the Forest Service personnel 

working on the Dakota Prairie Grasslands have held a number of 

meetings with different Grazing Associations, different organizations and actually taking comment, forwarding comment. 

My office forwarded that comment, aggregated the comment that 

we have from all of our units that have grazing programs, and forwarded that to our national office. There is a tremendous amount 

of detail in those 16 chapters that were just recently released. And 

again, I apologize for the language that this one sentence has 
93 

brought us to today. And we have withdrawn it, and we will make 

it right. 

Janette, do you want to add anything to that? 

Ms. KAISER. I think your basic question is how did we make the 

mistake? The sentence basically has been interpreted to mean that 

we would withdraw the opportunity of leasing where it isn’t in 

place at the current time. Remember a handbook is instruction to 

people in the field. It says: Here’s how you go about doing business. 

The intent was to remind them that subleasing or leasing—share 

livestock and leasing of base property is not a provision that we 

have the authority for outside of the National Grasslands. That 

was the intent of that language. How it got changed I can’t tell 

you, but I can say we’re sorry. 

Senator DORGAN. Well, have you removed the proposed 7 year 

limit on leasing, or is the entire leasing proposal eliminated, or 

have you just eliminated the one sentence? 

Ms. KIMBELL. We eliminated the sentence that stated that leasing would no longer be allowed. We’ve eliminated that. 

Senator DORGAN. So if leasing is allowed, tell me about the 7 

year limit that exists in your handbook. 

Ms. KIMBELL. The 7 years that’s there in the handbook is both 

with leasing of base property and leasing of livestock. It’s a generally accepted time period in the industry that it takes 7 years to 

be able to build a herd when you’re working with a leased herd. 

Senator DORGAN. So that has not been changed? 

Ms. KIMBELL. But it’s not listed—it’s not intended to be a 7 year 

limit. It’s a 7 year agreement at a time so that a person may enter, 

and as you stated I believe, Senator, that you know, leases are 

often 3 years. 

Leases do vary from 3 years to 7 years normally, and at the end 

of that period, there could be a new lease issue depending on the 

agreement—— 

Senator DORGAN. My point is you apparently have changed—you 

apparently are apologizing for including a sentence that says leasing shall not be permitted on base property. 

Ms. KIMBELL. That’s correct. 

Senator DORGAN. But as you know, there are other things that 

attach to the leasing restrictions and changes that you are making. 

Let me ask then, if nothing else has been removed, there still remains some changes with respect to leasing practices in this handbook. Why would the Forest Service have been considering, discussing and talking about these changes without consultation with 

the ranchers? 

I know you say that there were some meetings. Do you think any 

ranchers came to a meeting here in North Dakota and came away 

from that meeting understanding that, you know, the Forest Service now is going to just change this whole leasing situation. 

Do you think there’s anybody here in this room that will say they 

went to a meeting and came away with that understanding? 

Ms. KIMBELL. I don’t believe any of Dave’s employees would have 

implied that that was the intent, because certainly, it was not the 

intent. And yet, I don’t argue that the language came out reading 

that way. 
94 

Senator DORGAN. Right. But you’re talking about the sentence. 

I’m talking about the larger proposal on changes in leasing, one of 

which is the sentence which would prohibit, the others of which include the 7 year and other guidance. 

My point is why was that such a surprise to ranchers? Was it 

because the Forest Service didn’t alert anybody to this, because the 

Forest Service wasn’t in consultation with the ranchers? 

Mr. Pieper, did you know it? 

Mr. PIEPER. No. I was not aware of the—excuse me. Thank you, 

first, for inviting me, Senator Dorgan and Congressman Pomeroy. 

I met with the grazing associations about 2 years ago, with the 

presidents of the grazing associations to discuss the leasing situation, and I think what brought that about were a couple different 

issues. 

First off, there was some direction from a forest supervisor from 

the Custer National Forest in 1987 that kind of stipulated what 

livestock grazing and leasing would be about. The basic premise 

there was that it was to get new ranchers into ranching. That was 

the basic premise. 

From what I’ve discerned over the years is that probably prior 

to 1985 that was occurring quite frequently. 

Senator DORGAN. Let me stop you there just for a moment. The 

premise was from someone in the Custer—who described this 

premise? 

Mr. PIEPER. The then Forest Supervisor on the Custer National 

Forest, and at that time—— 

Senator DORGAN. Just his opinion that this was a 7 year practice 

to try to get young and new ranchers into the—— 

Mr. PIEPER. Well, I think the idea was, yes, to get new ranchers 

into the system and to use leasing and share cattle agreements. 

That basically, we know that’s been occurring in North Dakota 

probably since the 1930s. So rather than eliminating that policy or 

some kind of proposal like that, how do we work with it? So they 

were trying to put some side boards on it. 

Senator DORGAN. This is more than side boards. 

Mr. PIEPER. Well, now it’s—you’re absolutely right. So I met with 

the Grazing Association presidents about 2 years ago. We discussed 

this. 

We came away with—and by that I mean myself and my staff— 

that we need to transition into some new program with leasing. 

We’re going to keep leasing on the National Grasslands. It’s important to the livestock grazers and it’s important to us. But we didn’t 

propose any time frames at that time. 

Senator DORGAN. I want to take enough time so that I understand this because I still don’t think I’m getting to the point I was 

trying to make. 

You’re making some changes with respect to leasing. You’re just 

removing the language that says leasing of base property shall be— 

we’re going to prohibit some of the leases base property from having grazing rights. But you eliminate that sentence, but there are 

other changes, other proposals that you have with respect to leasing; correct? 

Mr. PIEPER. Correct. The 7 years is the proposal. 
95 

Senator DORGAN. That’s right. Did you have a chance to—did the 

Forest Service decide we’re going to talk to ranchers about that? 

We’re going to fly that out there and see how that works and see 

how they react to that before we decide to put this in a handbook? 

Mr. PIEPER. No, sir. I was not aware of the 7 year proposal. 

Senator DORGAN. So how does that happen, Ms. Kimbell, that 

Mr. Pieper, who we fought for a long time to get a position here 

as the supervisor of the grasslands isn’t aware of a proposal that’s 

going to have, I think, can have a significant impact on the grasslands? How does it work that he’s out of the line of understanding 

here? 

Ms. KIMBELL. He shouldn’t have been. 

Senator DORGAN. So that’s another mistake? 

Ms. KIMBELL. When you’re revising 16 chapters of Forest Service 

directives, there are a lot of different details that go into all of that. 

No, normally Dave would have been very aware of something 

that was that significant in regulation or in policy for the implementation of regulation. Dave would have been aware. I would 

have been aware. This caught us both by surprise. 

Senator DORGAN. So neither of you read the 16 chapters? 

Ms. KIMBELL. We did about the same time you got them. 

Senator DORGAN. What on earth is going on here? I mean, how 

is it that there’s 16 chapters coming out of the Forest Service. 

You’re the Regional Forester. Dave is in charge of North Dakota, 

and you haven’t read them when they’re published? 

Who in the hell is publishing this without having people down 

in the Forest Service understanding what they’re publishing and 

not having you read it? 

Even more important, why are they publishing something without having meetings and giving ranchers an opportunity to understand what you’re trying to do? 

It’s one thing to—I mean, I came here understanding that ranchers didn’t know it was happening because the Forest Service didn’t 

bother to tell them. 

Now I hear an understanding that you didn’t know it was happening because you hadn’t read the 16 chapters that were published in the handbook. What on earth is going on in the Forest 

Service? 

Ms. KIMBELL. We have made known our concerns, since receiving 

your letter, Senator Dorgan, but even before that, as our staffs 

were reviewing the materials that were provided to us raising this 

as a concern. 

We have taken those steps to have those pieces of the published 

documents removed and set as a proposal so that we can have 

those discussions, so that we can work with ranchers and have 

those discussions at the local level, rather than have it come from 

the national office. 

Senator DORGAN. The changes are not with respect to leasing. 

It’s Forest Service entry on private lands. 

We’ll have testimony in a few minutes from Randy Mosser, Keith 

Winter, and Todd Anderson and they’ll talk about definition differences and animal unit, a whole series of things. The Forest Service’s ability to require conservation practices on private land. 
96 

So 16 chapters and a handbook is published. You are not 

aware—you have not read it. Mr. Pieper hasn’t read it. So who is 

responsible for that? 

Who is it in the national office that decided, you know what, 

we’re going to throw 16 chapters out here, and we’re not going to 

tell Ms. Kimbell, we’re not going to tell Mr. Pieper what we’re putting out? Who is responsible? Who do I look as accountable for this? 

Not the Agency. The Agency is some morphus big bureaucracy. 

I want to know who in the Agency decided to put out 16 chapters 

that will affect every rancher that has an allotment out here without giving you the opportunity to see the 16 chapters or Mr. Pieper, 

and especially without giving ranchers the opportunity. 

But who is responsible in the Forest Service? Who made the decision to publish the 16 chapters? 

Ms. KAISER. The Chief of the Forest Service is responsible. 

Senator DORGAN. Now, I asked the Chief of the Forest Service to 

come here. It’s Tuesday. He is at a conservation meeting of some 

type. Describe what that meeting is, if you would. 

Ms. KAISER. It’s a conference on collaboration with Secretary 

Johanns and a variety of individuals in interest groups, including 

the livestock industry, and seeking ways to better embrace collaboration with our partners throughout the USDA. 

Senator DORGAN. This is a serious issue. I’m not trying to make 

fun of anybody, but the Forest Service has darn little experience 

in collaborating it seems to me, and now the Chief is off collaborating today. 

I would have much sooner he’d have come to Bismarck to collaborate a little bit longer before these 16 pages were proposed, or 16 

chapters I should say were proposed. 

It is, Ms. Kimbell, you I think are saying that the one sentence 

that appears twice has been removed, does not reflect the intent of 

the Forest Service? 

Ms. KIMBELL. Correct. 

Senator DORGAN. That sentence is a sentence that would prohibit 

those who had leased base property to engage and to assume the 

grazing opportunities of the grasslands. So that is taken out. 

But as I’ve just described, those 16 chapters have many other 

provisions that will have an impact on the grazing associations, the 

way the grazing associations operate. In fact, those 16 chapters include provisions that will give people individual permits, rather 

than through the association. I think have provisions that are in 

conflict with North Dakota Law in some areas. 

So this is not just about one sentence, although that one sentence, I think, in many ways is a symptom of a deep and serious 

problem in the Forest Service about how they do things. 

There are some people, and we’ll—I’m not suggesting those who 

are going to testify today are among them. There are some people 

that you couldn’t satisfy under any circumstance any day of the 

week. They’re going to complain about everything, and if you’re not 

going to listen, they’re going to show up the next day to complain. 

I understand that. I get a lot of letters who have a lot of complaints. I had one person that wrote 280 letters to me over 3 years 

complaining. You know, God bless him. 
97 

But the fact is there are some complaints that are very important and very legitimate, and I think North Dakota ranchers have 

a legitimate beef with the Forest Service because I think they’ve 

been mistreated here. 

It’s not just about the one sentence. Ms. Kimbell, if you think it’s 

about one sentence, then we’re not connecting. 

Ms. KIMBELL. Not for a minute, Senator, do I think it’s about the 

one sentence. 

Senator DORGAN. So let’s talk about the rest of it because we 

have 16 chapters that include a number of other provisions, which 

we’ll hear about from future witnesses. It’s about how the grazing 

associations interact with the Forest Service. That’s one very important issue; right? I mean, there are a series of them. 

So those 16 chapters were put out in effect—I’m not quite sure 

exactly what has been rescinded at this moment, and then my understanding is the Forest Service is now going to go through a comment period and is moving head long into doing the kinds of things 

they should have done before in order to make these policies the 

official policies of the Forest Service with respect to managing the 

grasslands. Is that the case? 

Ms. KIMBELL. Senator, as part of those 16 chapters is as Representative Pomeroy talked about. It was to correct language that 

was in a 1985 version of our manual and handbook, was to correct 

language to update it to recognize enacted law that has been enacted since 1985. 

It was also recognizing a great deal of case law that has been decided in those ensuing 20 years. So there’s a lot of work that happened in those 16 chapters that was not—is not a matter of whether or not it’s within the purview of the agency to make changes. 

It’s to identify those things that have been enacted and changed 

at a national level that need to be reflected in the instruments, the 

legal instruments by which grazing occurs on public lands and the 

policies for managing the grazing on public lands. 

Senator DORGAN. I have no problem with that at all. The more 

routine, corrected measures that are necessary over time, I have no 

problem with that at all. 

There’s also a 1988 leasing agreement with the U.S. Forest Service, and that 1988 leasing agreement, the North Dakota Grazing 

Associations have a signed agreement with the Forest Service for 

the leasing of Base Property and Share Livestock Agreement since 

1988. You have a copy of that document. 

The Forest Service if it wished to somehow change that document it seems to me would have first gone to the ranchers, to the 

Grazing Associations, to others affected and said look, here’s what 

we think. We’re going to begin a process to effect a change. So you 

have open dialogue, open discussion, open debate, an open process. 

That’s what should happen if one is going to go back and begin 

changes. 

The 1988 agreement, especially with respect to leasing and 

shared livestock agreements would have, I thought, required you to 

begin that kind of collaboration. 

Again, I asked the Chief of the Forest Service to come today. I 

don’t have any idea how important this meeting is, but he’s the 

person that I think is responsible for this and I—— 
98 

My feeling is this: I think these policy changes that have been 

recommended in this handbook, the policy changes need to be suspended, all of them suspended, under suspension, and then you 

need to begin a clean process working with and collaborating with 

grazing associations and ranchers. And we’re going to look over the 

shoulders of the Forest Service as that happens. 

We may very well, and it may be in this subcommittee, we may 

very well take some actions that ties your hands here. We can do 

that. Senator Burns and I have talked about it on the telephone 

last week again. 

Senator Burns—you know, I can’t speak for my colleague from 

Montana, but let me do it anyway. And he will have no problem 

with it. He feels as I do that the Forest Service is ham-handed and 

heavy-handed, and you need to be more collaborative and need to 

be working with people better. 

I think one of the problems here is you’re all, you’re a group with 

a title of ‘‘forest’’. We’re dealing with grasslands, and the policies 

are very different, the needs are very different. 

Let me just conclude with this: I perhaps have a couple of other 

questions after Congressman Pomeroy inquires. We have in the 

testimony that will follow you today, and I am expecting you’ll be 

able to stay and listen to the testimony. I hope you can, because 

I think it will be beneficial. 

We have testimony that will describe in some detail a range of 

policy changes. Not just leasing, but a range of changes, changes 

almost all of which have been put in this handbook without consultation with the grazing associations or the ranchers. That’s unfair, and we’re not going to let that happen. 

One way or another whether it’s through this subcommittee, Senator Burns and myself or someone through some other device, we 

will intercede unless we understand that the Forest Service is operating in good faith and collaborating and consulting with and working with these ranchers. That has not been the case at this point. 

Let me ask Congressman Pomeroy to inquire, following up which 

I will ask a couple additional questions. 

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Senator Dorgan, Mr. Chairman. Well, 

I assure you on the House side, the House Agriculture Committee, 

the authorizing committee for the Forest Service will also, I think, 

be deeply disturbed by the Agency practice as reflected in the conduct of the Forest Service to date. 

Now, Ms. Kaiser, let me get this straight, are you the attorney 

with the Forest Service? 

Ms. KAISER. No, sir. I’m the Director for Rangelands for the Forest Service. 

Mr. POMEROY. Can you or Ms. Kimbell tell me whether the Forest Service as an Agency practice has increasingly used interim directives as opposed to regulatory changes under the Administrative 

Practices Act? 

Ms. KAISER. I don’t know—I don’t have the statistics on how 

many ideas we’ve had or whether or not there are an increase, 

there have been an increase in the use of them. 

But if I may, if I could explain the interim directive process and 

why we used it here, that may help. 
99 

When we go out with a proposed change just as we have done 

by pulling the new items, the changes in policies, we pulled those 

and put those in a proposed amendment and that has 120 day comment period. 

When we put out an interim directive, what we’re able to do, 

those are only good for 18 months. So it’s akin to test driving a car. 

Before you take 16 chapters and revise them, you put them out 

in an interim directive with—and I want to remind that we had no 

intent of limiting or removing leasing from our policy. 

But it allows the internal audience and external audience ample 

time, 18 months, to be able to figure out does this work, and gives 

us the opportunity out at the end of that 18 months to change it. 

Mr. POMEROY. May I just point out, what an extraordinary 

change in executive branch practice that is. 

Senator DORGAN. Congressman Pomeroy, let me just interrupt 

for a moment. We’ve got a sound system problem. I want all of you 

to be able to hear. 

I’m going to ask that we take one of the microphones there and 

you pass that around, and we will shut the portable ones off. It 

seems speaking directly into this might be better for all of you. 

Speak very closely. 

Mr. POMEROY. I’ve never heard of the test-drive-a-car analogy 

relative to essentially new law. Here, taxpayers. Here’s a new law. 

Let’s test drive this one. See how you like these requirements. Let 

us know after you’ve been living under it for a while. 

That is a very different matter than the Administrative Practices 

Act which has its very well defined rules about promulgating new 

requirements on citizens. 

To suggest that you slap one set of rules on folks for 18 months 

and see how it goes, if it doesn’t go very well, you change it around. 

Obviously that’s no way to run a government, and I would urge 

that you reexamine entirely this whole interim directive business. 

Now, it’s also extraordinarily difficult, within the interim directive process, there’s no formal opportunity for input. There are letters submitted and at this point in time, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to 

enter into the record this document. 

Senator DORGAN. Without objection. 

Mr. POMEROY. If you’d be so kind, Mr. Cameraman, hand it to 

the panel and just pass it down. 

CAMERAMAN. You pay me well. 

Mr. POMEROY. There’s no requirement for feedback, no give and 

take. Suddenly the new requirements are upon you and published 

in a form without advanced notice that doesn’t even distinguish the 

new from the old. 

As my staff tried to tear this apart and try to find out what was 

new and what was old, we really had a very difficult time because 

it’s not broken out. 

To me, and I didn’t know whether this was just kind of confusing 

or a deliberate attempt by a federal agency to obfuscate what 

they’re doing. And I’m kind of inclined to believe the latter. 

Now, if you’re head of grasslands? 

Ms. KAISER. Rangelands. 

Mr. POMEROY. You’re head of rangelands? 

Ms. KAISER. Yes, sir. 
100 

Mr. POMEROY. Were you aware of the interim directives? We’ve 

heard that Ms. Kimbell and Mr. Pieper weren’t. 

Ms. KAISER. Yes, I was aware of them. 

Mr. POMEROY. Had you read them and understood the application of them? 

Ms. KAISER. I’d read them many times. 

Mr. POMEROY. I’m surprised to know that there seemed to be a 

breakdown in communication, Ms. Kaiser, between Washington 

and the region between Washington and North Dakota within the 

Agency. 

I will also tell you something I told Ms. Kimbell and Mr. Pieper 

earlier, and that is congressional delegation is routinely by agencies involved in the information loop as major issues are considered. 

So you at your desk had considered these many times, had read 

them many times and thoroughly considered them. Did you think 

about communicating with those that would be asked to implement 

those rules; your regional and state staff? 

Did you think about communicating with congressional delegation? Did you think about most importantly communicating with 

the people that were about to have to live under them? 

Ms. KAISER. Yes, sir. We worked very closely with the regional 

program leads across the Nation. They coordinated with their internal and external audiences and we were—— 

Mr. POMEROY. On this particular one relative to grasslands, 

we’ve just heard the same Agency give a very different story. 

Ms. Kimbell says she didn’t know of it before it came down, and 

you say you worked very closely with—throughout the agency to 

make sure the public was thoroughly involved. 

Ms. KAISER. We worked very closely internally with our folks to 

help—— 

Mr. POMEROY. Did you work with the region? 

Ms. KAISER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. POMEROY. Ms. Kimbell, were you worked with on these interim directives? 

Ms. KIMBELL. Yes. I was very aware of these chapters—— 

Mr. POMEROY. How does that square with what you told us a few 

minutes ago—— 

Ms. KIMBELL. I was not aware of the one line that has been removed and of the proposed impacts to leasing as an option—— 

Mr. POMEROY. Ms. Kimbell, you describe this almost as a typo. 

I mean, this is a very substantive change. It’s not just one line. It 

doesn’t actually matter how many words it takes. 

If you wipe out decades long practice of lease transfer, it could 

be several pages or one line. It doesn’t matter. The thing was, it 

was very deliberate. 

Are you suggesting it somehow an inadvertent change by the 

Forest Service? 

Ms. KIMBELL. I’m suggesting that everyone in this room understands how serious a change that could have been, and that no one 

intended that that change actually—no one in this room proposed 

it and that somewhere in the process of finalizing this package 

there was a word changed, a word left out. 
101 

Yes, I’m suggesting that it was an inadvertent edit that was 

made that totally changed the meaning to beyond something that 

the Chief of the Forest Service ever intended. 

Mr. POMEROY. Ms. Kimbell, I will just tell you I don’t believe 

you. 

Ms. KIMBELL. I’m sorry. 

Mr. POMEROY. Ms. Kaiser, did you have an awareness of the 

lease transfer change? 

Ms. KAISER. There was never any intent on our part to convey 

any kind of policy that would eliminate leasing. That was never a 

proposal. 

Senator DORGAN. If I might, Earl. That was not his—nobody 

made that point about eliminating. The fact is it could not—Earl 

put it well. 

This could not have been a typo or some inadvertent missing a 

word here because the minute it was out, there were people in the 

Forest Service defending it. There were people defending it. 

Why? For the very reason Mr. Pieper described. Well, leasing 

really that’s to get young people in and it wasn’t working so well, 

so let’s change it. So this could not have been some inadvertent 

word in or out. 

It was, in my judgment, somebody decided to change the policy, 

Ms. Kimbell. You disagree with that? 

Ms. KIMBELL. Yes, I do. 

Senator DORGAN. Then why were they defending it? 

Ms. KIMBELL. In any agency, in any organization with 35,000 

people, you will find a range of opinions, and you’ll probably find 

an opinion to support any different position. 

Yes, it’s been the Agency’s position, it has been the Chief of the 

Forest Service’s position to exercise his option in the regulation to 

allow leasing of livestock in North Dakota. 

It’s not a practice that we have throughout the National Forest 

System and not throughout the National Grasslands portion of the 

National Forest System. It is a practice that we have here in North 

Dakota. 

Mr. POMEROY. Ms. Kimbell, when your people went out to discuss this with the Grazing Associations, they described its full impact. That means that at some point, either you or Mr. Pieper understood the impact of the words as published. 

Now, if this is a huge surprise, an inadvertent mistake with a 

dramatically different impact, we’re all shocked about it, I don’t 

then send out my personnel to try and enforce it. But that’s what 

the Forest Service did. 

It’s totally inconsistent with your suggestion that this is an inadvertent slip. You were trying to enforce it. 

Now, explain that one, Mr. Pieper. 

Mr. PIEPER. I don’t believe I was trying to enforce it. When I got 

the language, when I read it, I knew we would probably be sitting 

here today. Probably that’s the last thing I wanted to do. 

I worked diligently to change the language. There was a communication gap in the Forest Service. That’s what we’re saying. My 

people worked with Grazing Association members and presidents. 

I did, too. 
102 

I came to the conclusion that we have to keep leasing in North 

Dakota. No doubt about that. That word obviously didn’t get in to 

these changes at the Washington office. There was a gap in communications. 

Mr. POMEROY. I will look forward to pursuing this with the personnel in the Washington office, as I know Senator Dorgan and 

Senator Conrad will. 

There are a lot of other features in this whole matter though that 

brings a lot of concerns. I’ll read you the sentence. It doesn’t appear 

to be an inadvertent sentence. 

It says, ‘‘If the Forest Service discerns a trend from Grazing Associated issue to determine grazing permits in favor of forest service termed grazing permits, Forest Service should reevaluate 

whether continuing grazing agreement represents an effective and 

efficient method of administering livestock grazing unaffected 

lands.’’ 

Now, that non-consequential language, perhaps in your mind, to 

Grazing Associations say there’s an attempt to change issuance of 

permits for Grazing Associations, a long practice here, to the Forest 

Service. 

There is a definition of animal unit. ‘‘One mature cow or the 

equivalent based on average forest consumption of 26 pounds of dry 

matter per day.’’ 

What are the—does this contemplate cow/calf or does it totally 

change the measure of animal unit, which is very basic and a substantive matter relative to all this? 

There’s the matter Senator Dorgan referenced earlier about access on private land. Now we have part of this withdrawn, and part 

of it implemented and it is a mangled mess. 

What I believe, I want to echo Senator Dorgan’s suggestion, 

strong suggestion to the Forest Service that all of this be pulled 

back. I mean, honestly sitting here, I don’t know what’s in. I don’t 

know what’s out. I don’t know how we proceed given the considerable disarray the Forest Service now finds itself in relative to all 

this without pulling it all back, being very guarded about what is 

advanced by way of interim directive and doing whatever else you 

need to do open and above board so that we have a chance to talk 

to you while you’re suggesting this. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to participate. 

Senator DORGAN. Congressman Pomeroy, thank you. Just one 

more question and then I want to get to the next panel. 

Mr. Pieper, what you just said leads me to even better understand that this was not a mistake. You said that you worked diligently to change it. I assume what you mean by that, you previously said you hadn’t read the 16 chapters prior to their—— 

Mr. PIEPER. I read the draft chapters. 

Senator DORGAN. So in the draft chapters does that include the 

leasing provision? 

Mr. PIEPER. No, it didn’t. 

Senator DORGAN. So what were you working diligently to 

change? 

Mr. PIEPER. That language, sir. 

Senator DORGAN. When? 

Mr. PIEPER. After the final. 
103 

Senator DORGAN. After it was published? 

Mr. PIEPER. Yes. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. You know, I mean, at best this is 

sloppy work. It’s bad policy I think slipped under a door someplace, 

and I think—I’m not surprised that ranchers came to us, Grazing 

Associations came to us upset with this. 

I mean, there has to be consultation and there has not been. And 

I’ve been involved in the Forest Service issues for a long, long time 

through a good many chiefs, and there’s plenty of reasons to criticize a big bureaucracy. 

The Forest Service is a big old bureaucracy, but what I hear this 

morning bothers me a lot because I think there’s something—I 

think, Ms. Kaiser, you said this is a big agency or maybe, Ms. 

Kimbell, you said this is a big agency different—a lot of people 

have different views, different opinions. Yeah, I know. 

I also know there are some people there that don’t think—they 

don’t like grazing on the grasslands. They think ranchers are a 

nuisance, a pain. They don’t want to deal with Grazing Associations. They’d like none of this. They’d just like to go look at some 

trees and deal with some procedures and policies on trees. 

The fact is this is an important part of this State. A $600 million 

part of our economy. Ranching is important, and I worry that there 

are very few people that understand where this land comes from. 

These grasslands are different than most lands supervised by the 

Forest Service. Most lands supervised by the Forest Service have 

always been in public hands, never in private hands. 

These lands, the grasslands of North Dakota largely were taken 

into public hands, owned by the Federal Government back in the 

Great Depression, and part of the Bankhead-Jones Act that accomplished that anticipated that they would still remain a part of agriculture in this State. 

Yes, it’s also multiple use, but a part of agriculture. Otherwise 

there would have been a huge problem here, because it’s a significant part of our economy. 

The very least we can expect from the managing Agency is good 

management and a partnership of good consultation. That certainly 

has not been the case here. 

So let me just leave it with this thought: This is going to change. 

I mean, you say you’ve removed the offending sentence, but I can 

tell you this is going to change, because those of us in Congress 

that have the ability, whether it’s an appropriations committee or 

other ways, to get the attention of the Chief of the Forest Service 

if he’s not collaborating somewhere, in the country, we will get his 

attention. And we’ll get the right way, and we will get these policies straight. 

But in the meantime, I think all of you, the three of you and the 

Chief and everybody in the Forest Service, have a responsibility not 

to do this sort of thing. 

If you need to make some changes from time to time that are 

thoughtful and sensible and well grounded and common sense, 

then meet with the ranchers and meet with the Grazing Associations. They understand common sense. This is where common 

sense originates. So meet with them and talk through these things. 
104 

But surprising them and us with bad policy is hardly an appropriate way for a Federal agency to be a good neighbor. So if you 

have additional comments, I will be happy to entertain them before 

we call the next set of witnesses. 

Ms. KIMBELL. Senator and Representative Pomeroy, we appreciate the opportunity to be with you today. 

Senator DORGAN. Oh, you don’t appreciate this. 

Ms. KIMBELL. We do. 

Senator DORGAN. No, no. I know better than that. But you’re 

here because we asked you to be here. 

Ms. KIMBELL. We are here because you asked us to be here, but 

we’re also very proud to be able to play a role in the management 

of the grasslands, working with the Grazing Associations in partnership. 

The Chief of the Forest Service would have been here, the Under 

Secretary would have been here, but they are attending a White 

House conference that’s been planned for many, many months 

being held this week in St. Louis, Missouri. 

It’s all of Government. It’s not just with the U.S. Forest Service, 

but it’s with all of Government and with many, many external 

partners and organizations, interest organizations from around the 

country. Otherwise they both would have chosen to be here. 

We look forward to working with the grazing associations, working with individual permittees to further refine the language that 

appeared, and so that when it is published and final, we do have 

a working document that can work for all of us and that recognizes 

all the changes that have occurred since 1985 and recognize the 

need for language that we all understand and that we can all live 

with. 

Senator DORGAN. Ms. Kimbell, are you able to make the commitment today on behalf of the Chief of the Forest Service that going 

forward you intend to sit down and consult with, meet with, discuss with the grazing associations and the ranchers all of the 

issues that you’re considering? 

Ms. KIMBELL. Absolutely. 

Senator DORGAN. Thank you for being here. 

Mr. POMEROY. One final question, Senator Dorgan, and that involves the status of this whole packet, the 16 chapters. Some of 

which have now been withdrawn, but you say some haven’t. I honestly don’t know where we’re at. 

The Senator and I have asked you to pull them all back and 

move them forward after a very thorough deliberation of what is 

appropriate interim directive and what is appropriate administrative practice material. 

Ms. Kaiser or Ms. Kimbell, I want your response to our request. 

Ms. KIMBELL. I think we’ll need to consult with the Chief, in that 

many of those chapters are as I described earlier. They’re clarifications that incorporate new statute and case law, and it’s necessary 

to have some clarification to the field and a—— 

Mr. POMEROY. The issue is it’s intermingled. We have seen the 

intermingling of case law changes. We’ve seen the intermingling of 

implementation of new statute, and we’ve seen the implementation 

of personal whim. It’s all intermingled and we don’t know what is 

what, nor do I know at this point in time what’s in and what’s out. 
105 

Now, how do you suggest clarifying the existing state of affairs, 

other than pulling them all back moving forward? Not to pull them 

all back and throw them all away. I understood there’s things in 

there that need to move forward. 

Ms. KIMBELL. We will absolutely provide both your offices and 

the other Senator’s office with clarification on all those pieces. 

For any members of the public who are interested, there is a 

piece of paper in the back on the table with the website, the correct 

website address for being able—for those who are computer savvy 

who would like to look at it that way. They can review those pieces 

specifically, but we will have that information to your office. 

Mr. POMEROY. I will also mail out anything I receive to those 

that have signed in attendance here. But I want by way of drafting 

practice the new delineated from the former language so that we 

can read the thing intelligibly. 

It does not make 16 pages—16 chapters of volume without what’s 

new and what’s not. I don’t know what the changes are. I don’t 

know where we’re at. I want that delineated also in what you’ll 

give us. 

Ms. KIMBELL. I believe we can do that. 

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you. 

Ms. KIMBELL. Thank you. 

Senator DORGAN. As I excuse you, let me ask that you tell the 

Forest Service Chief, and I will do so as well, that we would like 

for him to submit to the subcommittee by a week from this Friday, 

which would give him a week and a half, a written response to our 

request that the batch of chapters in that handbook be rescinded 

until we understand what is new, what is old, what are the impacts, what will the effect be. 

I would like a formal response from the Chief of whether he is 

intending to do that or not based on our request. Thank you very 

much. 

Next we will call Randall Mosser, President of the North Dakota 

Grazing Association; Keith Winter, President of McKenzie County 

Grazing Association; Tony Anderson, President of the Sheyenne 

Valley Grazing Association; Joe Milton, Junior and Tony Huseth, 

two ranchers, who will share their personal stories with us. 

We thank all of you for being here. I regret that this is lasting 

as long as it is, but it’s an important issue, and I know you have 

the patience to wait and hang in here and get the full story. 

Your contribution to this is to give us your perspective about 

what has happened, and what impact it might have on our state, 

ranchers, Grazing Associations, and we appreciate your being here. 

Can I call you Randy? 

Mr. MOSSER. Yeah. 

Senator DORGAN. Yeah, Randy. Randy Mosser. Thank you for 

being here. President of the North Dakota Grazing Association. 

Why don’t you proceed. 

STATEMENT OF RANDALL MOSSER, PRESIDENT, NORTH DAKOTA 

GRAZING ASSOCIATION 

Mr. MOSSER. Thank you. Yes, I am President of the North Dakota Grazing Association. We represent all grazing associations in 
106 

North Dakota and the Grand River Grazing Association in South 

Dakota. 

I’m accompanied by Keith Winter, President of McKenzie County 

Grazing Association, and Todd Anderson, President of the 

Sheyenne Valley Grazing Association. 

We also have Doug Pope from the Little Missouri Grazing Associations. A lot of the stuff that you covered this morning was also 

part of my testimony. Did you want me to repeat all that? 

Senator DORGAN. Just summarize it. I read your testimony prior 

to this hearing, and it was very helpful. But you all feel free to 

summarize in an extemporaneous way, and you don’t need to go 

through it all, but make the important points. 

Mr. MOSSER. Well, the one thing that kind of disturbed me a little bit is a key thing. They’re not seeing new operators coming in 

and buying the places. 

So I had our secretary pull our minutes for the last 15 years, and 

of the 165 committees that we’ve had, the ranches that we have in 

our Grazing Associations, 66 of them have changed hands in the 

last 15 years. 

That seems to me that there is being a turnover taking place. 

Senator DORGAN. In response to your question by the way, your 

statements will all be made a permanent part of the Committee 

record, as will the statements from the Forest Service. 

Mr. MOSSER. I think another thing that really disturbs us is 

where they can create new base property. That base property was 

the original property that the permit was based on in 1937, and the 

number of livestock that you could run was the number you ran 7 

years prior to 1937. That’s how big of a permit you got. 

But by being allowed to create new base property, you can take 

the most valuable portion of your ranch, sell it off and just buy 

some cheap land over on the side. It takes away the historical impact of the ranch; the intent that was originally made. 

Another thing that the Forest Service wanted to have is us supply all of our records to them unredacted and could copy them. 

Well, as far as the McKenzie Grazing Association and the Medora 

Grazing Association, we have a settlement agreement with them 

from a Federal District Court. We think that that should be honored. 

You also mentioned the new direct permitting requirements. We 

also note concern with new grazing agreement requirements, where 

it could possibly—you know, the grazing associations were there 

first. We did a lot of the maintenance work, a lot of the fixing up, 

a lot of getting started, getting grasslands back into shape, and we 

think we should have a right to be able to carry on doing that business in a partnership way with the Forest Service. 

The U.S. Forest Service entry on private land really has us disturbed because we feel that that’s the Grazing Associations’ job. 

Also for us to administer the lands we lease, the State school lands, 

the private lands that are out there. That was the reason that the 

grazing associations were set up was to handle those lands that 

were non-Forest Service lands. 

Also the Forest Service ability to be able to come onto private 

land and require range improvements on private land. To us, that’s 

just a conservation easement. 
107 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I guess that kind of sums it up a little bit, but we also ask that 

you help us in requiring the Forest Service to withdraw all of this 

stuff. We don’t think any of this stuff, or most of it fits the way 

we should have to operate. 

With that I thank you very much. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANDALL MOSSER AND KEITH WINTER

My name is Randall Mosser. I am President of the North Dakota Grazing Association, representing all of the Grazing Associations in North Dakota and the Grand 

River Grazing Association in South Dakota. I am accompanied by Keith Winter, 

President of the McKenzie County Grazing Association and Todd Anderson, President of the Sheyenne Valley Grazing Association. Little Missouri Grazing Association President, Doug Pope contributed and is in agreement with this testimony. 

I would like to thank you and the committee for the opportunity to provide testimony on the USFS Handbook Revision. We feel these Revisions would have many 

negative effects in North Dakota and would remove many programs that were implemented and proved successful long before the U.S. Forest Service assumed administrative responsibility for the Land Utilization projects later renamed the National Grasslands. 

All of the ranchers on the National Grasslands in North Dakota are members of 

these Grazing Associations because they own or lease ranches where all or some of 

the land was sold to the Federal Government to establish the Land Utilization 

projects during the Great Depression of the 1930’s. One of the main purposes of the 

purchase program was to establish Grassland agriculture to benefit the local economy and to ensure a stable and viable agricultural community. This bold experiment 

succeeded and more than 65 years later stands as a testament to the vision of North 

Dakota local and state policy makers. We have raised the issue for many years, as 

to why the National Grasslands should be administered in the same manner as a 

National Forest. The National Forests evolved from a different history, public purpose and are forests, not Grasslands. 

There are many issues we have identified in the U.S. Forest Service handbook Revisions that concern our associations. Some of these issues are as follows: 

National Grasslands Meeting National Forest Regulations.—The Forest Service 

proposes in this handbook revision to make all National Forest rules and regulations apply to the National Grasslands. This ignores the facts that the National 

Grasslands are acquired land and have evolved through a series of agreements with 

the federal agencies that administered them—with the Forest Service being the latest Federal Agency. 

Leasing of Base Property.—The USFS is proposing to prohibit the issuance of a 

grazing permit on federal land if the base property is leased. Leasing has always 

been an intricate part of the management of the National Grasslands. It is one of 

the tools for the present generation to hand a ranch down to the next generation. 

Almost all young operators have to lease for a period of years to build equity so they 

can eventually buy a ranch. If the resource is in good condition, it should be immaterial if it is leased or owned? There is no factual or legal basis to require ownership 

of base property or livestock. The Bureau of Land Management (‘‘BLM’’) that administers the majority of federal land grazing in the United States does not require 

ownership of either the land or livestock. In 1994, it issued a proposed rule to require ownership in order ‘‘to be consistent with Forest Service policy.’’ The public 

comments objecting to the change established that there was no federal benefit or 

improved management that would come from requiring ownership and BLM quickly 

dropped the proposed change. The Forest Service never addressed the question of 

why it continues to require ownership of land and livestock on National Forests. 

There are a number of reasons that a landowner may decide to lease a ranch instead of selling. In some cases, there are family estate issues, health reasons, financial problems, labor requirements, as well as tax consequences. No law or public policy supports forcing people to sell their land and business when it would cause them 

financial harm. Yet these guidelines would do exactly that. Experience over the last 

10 years shows that the Forest Service’s stated concern that ranches do not change 

hands is misplaced. Increased regulation of grazing on public lands and National 

Forests initiated in the mid-1990’s has persuaded or forced an ever increasing percentage of ranchers to sell or to subdivide their private land. Instead of a ranch 

homestead, the Colorado, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho mountains are now 
108 

dotted with 40-acre ranchettes used as second homes. These private lands are now 

closed to hunting and recreations users and the developments have had significant 

impacts on big game and wildlife, due to increased road density and conversion of 

land from range to home sites. This increased regulation has also concentrated federal grazing AUMs in the hands of just a few corporations, such as Ted Turner, who 

owns the largest number of federal AUMs. National environmental groups have also 

acquired ranches and rarely graze the federal lands or institute projects to improve 

vegetation and habitat. Neither development has benefited the local agricultural 

community, since the land and business is concentrated in the hands of a few and 

the environmental groups claim tax exempt status and do not graze the land. This 

process is not presently happening in North Dakota. The Handbook Revision would 

allow this process to develop. 

Share Livestock Agreements.—This is another tool to assist people in getting started in the livestock business. Share livestock agreements have been in use since the 

beginning of the livestock industry on both private and federal lands. 

1988 Leasing Agreement with the U.S. Forest Service.—The ND Grazing Associations currently have a signed agreement with the U.S. Forest Service on the requirements for leasing of base property and share livestock agreements since 1988. 

We have provided you with a copy of this document. The Forest Service should have 

lived up to this signed agreement and if they were going to revise it, it should have 

been in consultation with the effected parties. 

Creating New Base Property.—It has always been an association requirement for 

a permittee to own or lease the original base property that was established in 1936. 

The Forest Service is proposing to allow a permittee to change base property. This 

would allow ranchers along the Little Missouri River to sell off scenic portions of 

their ranches and buy cheaper land within the vicinity of the boundaries of the Association, to become their new base property. The permit would then follow the livestock and not the land. Eliminating leasing and allowing permit holders to create 

new base property will encourage what the USFS says it doesn’t want to happen: 

it will create ranchettes, hobby farms and a lot of small landowners wanting enough 

land for a second home or a gratis mule deer tag. 

Court Settlement Violation.—The Forest Service wants to have all records made 

available to them upon their request, for inspection and copying, without any deletions or redactions. As for the McKenzie and Medora Grazing Associations, there is 

a Settlement Agreement made in Federal District Court that allows Grazing Associations to redact certain information in the records. This proposal is in direct violation of a Federal District Court Mediation Settlement. 

New Direct Permit.—The Forest Service Handbook Revision would allow Grazing 

Association permittees to become direct permittees of the Forest Service which is 

in direct conflict with present Grazing Agreements and ND State Law. The Association permittee must request, in writing, to become a USFS direct permittee, and the 

Authorizing Officer will be the individual who determines if an Association permittee shall become a USFS direct permittee. This is just one more provision to 

weaken Association enforcement authority over its permittees and gives an uncooperative member a new option. 

North Dakota Century Code Pertaining to Grazing Association Law.—The Grazing 

Associations in North Dakota were organized under North Dakota State Law, 

passed in 1936. It allows the Associations to lease lands from the Federal government, the State of North Dakota, private individuals and other agencies. 

New Grazing Agreement Requirements 

1. New Recognition of Grazing Associations.—The Grazing Association administered the federal land almost entirely on their own from 1937 to the late 1970’s. 

From early 1980’s to present we have been subjected to an ever increasing bureaucracy of Forest Service policies, rules and regulations to comply with. A large number 

of the early contributions to rehabilitating the land can be attributed to the Association’s efforts, such as water development, fences, and the establishment of a carrying capacity to the lands (with preference numbers for each ranch based upon the 

number of head of livestock run seven (7) years prior to 1937, the amount of winter 

feed grown on the private lands, and the dependency of privately owned or leased 

property with in the grazing area). Now the Forest Service wants to throw out all 

of these efforts and start over by determining new stocking rates on both the federal 

and private lands, determining what CP Projects are needed on both federal and 

private lands, and even determining if the Association should remain in effect. 

Most Grazing Associations were organized in the 1930’s and 1940’s, and each has 

been given a lease agreement as per State Law. These Agreements with the Forest 

Service have been written for a 10-year period. The Associations were to organize 

and plan for the management and use of intermingled blocks of private, State, and 
109 

Federal lands. If our Grazing Agreement expires, are we going to be considered a 

‘‘New Association’’ and have to apply for recognition by the U.S. Forest Service Authorizing Officer? By applying for recognition, the Authorizing Officer will determine 

if leasing to the Association is the most effective and efficient means of administering grazing on the National Grasslands. 

2. U.S. Forest Service Entry on Private Land.—A new provision of the Handbook 

Revision for Grazing Associations is to allow the Forest Service entry on Association-controlled lands to determine whether the livestock grazing activities provided 

by Association-issued grazing permits are being carried out in conformance with applicable federal law, regulations, Forest Service policies and procedures, and the 

terms and conditions of the Grazing Agreements. Association-controlled lands are 

non-federal land, leased, owned or controlled by the Association for administration 

of grazing activities and management purposes. The Grazing Associations were created to manage these lands—now the U.S. Forest Service wants control over them. 

3. U.S. Forest Service’s Ability to Require Conservation Practices on Private 

Land.—This may require the Association to implement Conservation Practices on 

Association-administered lands as necessary to obtain proper livestock use and 

rangeland resource management. Association-administered lands are private, State, 

other agency and Non-USFS administered lands. The Forest Service wants control 

of the uses of these lands. 

4. Allotment Management Plans written by only the U.S. Forest Service.—The 

present policy is for the AMP’s to be developed jointly with the Forest Service and 

Grazing Association. 

5. Definition Differences in an Animal Unit.—The Forest Service definition for an 

Animal Unit is a 1,000 pound cow without a calf. Our present agreement allows for 

a mature cow with a calf as an animal unit. 

6. Forest Service Stocking Rates.—The Forest Service will determine the permitted 

numbers and season of use for livestock on NFS lands and assist the association 

in the determination of permitted numbers and season of use for the association 

controlled lands. This has already been done. 

We ask for your help in requiring the U.S. Forest Service to withdraw these proposals from consideration in their entirety. The Forest Service should issue rules 

specific to the National Grasslands that capture the history and legal criteria 

unique to the National Grasslands in order to preserve the equal partnership model 

that has succeeded so admirably for 65 years. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Mosser, thank you very much. Next we’ll 

hear from Keith Winter, and Keith is the President of the 

McKenzie County Grazing Associations. Keith. 

STATEMENT OF KEITH WINTER, PRESIDENT, McKENZIE COUNTY 

GRAZING ASSOCIATION 

Mr. WINTER. Well, thank you. It’s a joint testimony from Randy 

and I. He covered most of the things, but I absolutely agree with 

your statement it’s more than one sentence, these changes in the 

deal. We’ve articulated many of them. 

Senator DORGAN. Would you pull that a little closer to you. 

Mr. WINTER. Not all of them. The new grazing agreements are, 

I think there’s 25 items, something like that. So it’s way more than 

one sentence. I agree with that. 

I have here individual letters from permittees, approximately 100 

of them, from Little Missouri Grazing Association, McKenzie, 

Medora and Sheyenne, from individual ranchers and they articulate it probably better than we do here. And we’d like to submit 

them for the record. 

Senator DORGAN. Without objection. 

[The letters follow:] 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 

Mr. WINTER. I’ll take any questions as we go along. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. This is not a mistake free zone. I 

have in my list Tony Anderson and that sign says Todd Anderson. 

You help me out. 

Mr. ANDERSON. It’s Todd Anderson. 

Senator DORGAN. Todd Anderson is President of the Sheyenne 

Valley Grazing Association. Todd, thank you very much. 

Why don’t you proceed, and why don’t you pull that microphone 

over and speak as closely to the microphone as you can. Pull it 

right up next to you. 

STATEMENT OF TODD ANDERSON, PRESIDENT, SHEYENNE VALLEY 

GRAZING ASSOCIATION 

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, again, Senator Dorgan, Congressman 

Pomeroy, for being here. 

My testimony was written while I was sitting at the Ransom 

County Fair watching my daughter brush her calf. What I was 

thinking about was, you know, this is like the fourth generation 

that’s been at this fair, and now the Forest Service with the leasing—of course they’re saying that that’s not in their language any 

more, which I have a hard time believing, especially considering 

they still have a 120-day comment period. 

They’ve given us promises before, and a lot of times it’s not come 

true. But I’m thinking to myself, there’s my 7-year-old, and you 

know, this is my life, my heritage, and I can’t pass that on. 

If they do this, I’m not going to be able to afford to buy the base 

acres. It’s a family lease operation, and it’s just been passed down. 

And the Forest Service is telling me how to operate and do my 

business, and I don’t agree that that’s right. 

But the other thing that you two both hit on is that the Forest 

Service always stresses to us that it’s a joint, cooperative agreement. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Congressman Pomeroy, you hit on the issue that in January 2004 

we sent in letters discussing the leasing issue. Again, it was just 

superseded by Forest Service rules that they didn’t even consider 

what we had talked about, and they’re always stressing. So I don’t 

understand the whole cooperative agreement at all. With that, I 

thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TODD ANDERSON

My name is Todd Anderson. I am the current President of the Sheyenne Valley 

Grazing Association, and I am leasing base property. 

I would like to thank you and the committee for the opportunity to testimony in 

regards to the USFS Directives Chapter 20. 

My current lease agreement is a family lease operation. My dad and I have a LLP 

Partnership. The partnership rents from my father and my grandmother. The base 

property leased from my grandmother was original base within the SVGA. Now the 

USFS directive would require an 89 year old woman, living on her farm, to sell her 

property. The question I ask is why? 

The USFS directive, Chapter 20, would require me to purchase this land from my 

grandmother. That isn’t the intent of a family operation. The intent is to pass the 

ranching lifestyle on from generation to generation. I am currently sitting in the 

cattle barn at the Ransom County Fair. My seven year old daughter is brushing her 

show calf. Four generations have now participated in this fair. The USFS wants this 
259 

to change. Frankly, with land prices at the current rates of $900 an acre (pasture 

land) and $1,500 an acre (good tillable land), there is no way I’m going to make that 

type of financial commitment. 

The USFS with this directive would change my lifestyle, my heritage, and the 

ranching opportunity for my children. 

Again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

Senator DORGAN. Todd, thank you very much. 

Next we have Joe Milton, Jr., who is with us who is a rancher 

and who will share with us his observations. 

STATEMENT OF JOE MILTON, JR., RANCHER 

Mr. MILTON. Thank you, Senator and Congressman. I too am a 

little confused after I heard the testimony of the Forest Service because I came here concerned about the leasing wording in there. 

I’m a fourth generation rancher who intends to pass the ranch 

on down to the family and of course—and I am currently leasing 

my land out to a neighboring rancher. If I’m not allowed to do that, 

of course, I won’t be able to survive economically because that is 

my source of income, and I wouldn’t be able to pass my ranch on 

down if I have to sell it to get my income. However, the thing that 

confuses me a little bit is the fact that I see the Forest Service as 

falling into a practice of using theoretical management. 

By that I mean, somebody comes up with a theory that this grazing leasing is bad for grazing, and therefore we’re going to implement that you can’t lease any more. That’s theoretical, and nobody 

has proven that it really hurts agriculture or the grazing of the 

land to restrict leasing. 

Theoretical management is something that they’ve used in other 

cases. Let me give you an example, if I may. Somebody came up 

with a theory that the hawks and the eagles were sitting in the 

trees, and they were a danger to the nesting birds out in Sheyenne 

Grasslands. 

So the Forest Service went out in one allotment and cut down 

all the trees. Now this is the Forest Service in charge of forest, cutting down all the trees, the standing dead timber and also the live 

timber, with the idea that it was going to restrict the predators 

from disturbing the nesting birds. 

Well, we all know that the predators do their hunting when 

they’re soaring in the air, when they’re flying. So they went over 

and arrested another argument, they can still hunt in that area 

that they cleared off. 

That’s theoretical management, and I see this happening time 

and time again. It really disturbs me as a landowner to know that 

we are going to have to implement theory practices, rather than 

scientifically proven practices. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

So I am confused just as you are about this and it’s very disturbing. I think if you need any examples of other theory management, I do have several. But with that, I’m going to just thank you 

for the opportunity to be here and hope that you’ll be able to 

straighten out our confusion. 

[The statement follows:] 
260 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOE MILTON, JR. 

Hon. Senator Byron Dorgan, Sir: As a four generation landowner in Richland 

County with a ranch with base property in the Sheyenne National Grasslands, I am 

concerned with the new Forest Service grazing agreement for the Sheyenne Grasslands. 

As I have indicated, I am the 4th generation living on this 560 acre ranch. Due 

to age and health reasons, I have been leasing my ranch headquarters to a neighboring rancher who utilizes the 250 head permit. This allows me the income I need, 

and I still can retain ownership of the land which I intend to pass on to my children. 

If the new grazing agreement will not allow leasing except to family members, it 

would not allow me to own the land without oozing the preference permit which is 

attached to the base property. As a result, the value of the ranch suffers, and I lose 

needed income. My family live in towns and choose not to ranch: which leaves leasing as my best option. Changing a policy that has been in effect for many years, 

and which has proved beneficial to many local land owners, would create hardship 

and loss. 

Since leasing is a general practice in business, it would seem to be quite discriminatory to not allow ranchers to lease their land to someone. After all, we can lease 

tractors, pickups, machinery, autos, apartments, business sites, and the list goes on 

. I believe that Government agencies lease building sites and other things for their 

use: and now the Forest Service is not going to allow landowners the freedom to 

lease their ranches. This is very disturbing! 

It is my hope that you as a ranking Senator will be able to bring a change to 

the proposed agreement that would allow continued leasing of ranches on National 

Grasslands. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Milton, thank you very much. 

Finally, we will hear from Tony Huseth. And, Tony, I believe you 

have some testimony. 

How old are you? The reason I ask is you look younger than most 

of those of us in the room. 

Mr. HUSETH. Twenty-nine years old. 

Senator DORGAN. I have read your testimony as well. You seem 

to me to be exactly what this is all about, what these policies are 

all about. North Dakota State University graduate, come back, 

want to ranch. So why don’t you proceed. 

STATEMENT OF TONY HUSETH, RANCHER 

Mr. HUSETH. Welcome today. I’m glad to see that you guys could 

come and take your time to address a topic of such magnitude. 

I’d also like to welcome the Forest Service for coming as well and 

my fellow grazing associations members. It’s great to see a crowd 

here of this magnitude because like I said, this is a very important 

issue. 

I’m here today to bring to light the hardships facing me, as well 

as other permittees, if the elimination of leasing as pertained to the 

grazing permits on the North Dakota National Grasslands goes 

into effect. 

My name is Tony Huseth. I’m a rancher on the Sheyenne National Grasslands. I’m representing Sheyenne Valley Grazing Association, all young ranchers and all those involved on North Dakota 

Federal Grasslands. 

Like I said, I’m 29 years old. I was born and raised on the 

Sheyenne National Grasslands. My entire life has involved the 

Sheyenne National Grasslands in some fashion. From growing up 

as a kid, working and learning the ways of life in ranching until 

present where I still work hard everyday and continue to learn and 

make an honest living. 
261 

I am a graduate of North Dakota State University where I studied for and received a Bachelors’ Degree in agricultural economics. 

I took many classes that prepared me for the job I am doing such 

as ag marketing classes, animal science classes, plant science classes, as well as a few ranch science classes. This was further education towards doing what I love to do and what I thought was an 

honest and respectable living. 

The elimination of leasing on the Sheyenne National Grasslands 

would not only allow me as a young rancher to secure a future 

doing what I know and love, eliminating leasing would be a direct 

negative towards the prosperity of young ranchers or any of the 70 

percent of Sheyenne Valley Grazing Associations permittees that 

are affected some way by leasing. 

Lease elimination is not only a local problem, but a problem on 

our State level. One of the big issues in North Dakota’s past, 

present and future is loss of young people in the State due to outward migration. 

When I finished college, leasing got my foot in the door. Without 

this tool, I would have been forced into another career. I was lucky 

a lease opportunity was available that fit perfectly into my situation. 

By eliminating leasing, I, nor any young rancher with the desire 

to keep the North Dakota tradition of ranching alive, would be able 

to use the great resource of the National Grasslands as a tool in 

jump starting our dream. 

North Dakota is a great place to start and raise a family, but 

lease elimination takes this opportunity off the table for me. This 

would force me to change careers and run the risk of leaving North 

Dakota. 

By eliminating leasing on the National Grasslands, we would 

definitely eliminate jobs in this state. I think everyone here knows 

enough about the ins and outs about how leasing presently works 

on the National Grasslands, so I won’t go into a great deal about 

its use. 

The U.S. Forest Service and ranchers on the National Grasslands 

have, as long as I can remember, worked together to achieve certain goals. Although these goals may not always be the same, they 

are still goals and need team work to be achieved. 

Each side makes sacrifices at some point in time, but at the end 

of day we are all still forging forward. Maybe our goal is to improve 

cow herd health, increase herd productivity, improve financial net 

worth or flat out improve family well being. 

On the other hand, maybe our goal is to decrease leafy spurge 

populations, increase endangered species populations or just improve overall grassland health. 

No matter how you look at it, all these things need compromise 

to be achieved side by side. This type of compromise has been 

working since the National Grasslands exchanged ownership from 

the ranchers to the U.S. Government. 

By eliminating leasing, this team work relationship is put into 

jeopardy. Eliminating leasing takes a part of the equation and 

slowly squeezes it out. I am just one of the many players that run 

the risk of being squeezed out if this happens. 
262 

I currently lease roughly 480 acres of base property from two 

separate retired ranchers. This 480 acres carries with it two different grazing permits. 

My permits are for 82 and 56 head of cattle on the Sheyenne National Grasslands. I currently own 125 head of cattle on an already 

reduced grazing season, all of which are run on Sheyenne National 

Grassland allotments. 

I also work hand in hand with my family operation. My father 

also ranches on the Sheyenne National Grasslands. My father has 

his own permit and does not lease, but his operation is not large 

enough to sustain both of us together. So I took the opportunity of 

leasing more land to acquire another permit when the chance 

arose. 

My obtaining these lease permits allowed my father and I to increase operation, productivity and efficiency while loaning many of 

the high costs involved in agriculture today. 

As you can see already, the elimination of leasing is a financial 

burden to me for various reasons, as it will be to all others who 

lease base property. By not leasing, I am forced to purchase land 

on which to pasture my cattle or flat out quit ranching completely. 

This becomes a problem due to the high land costs as well as the 

lack of obtainable pasture land in the immediate area. I am at no 

financial situation yet to purchase the amount of land needed to 

ranch the same cattle numbers I am currently ranching. And there 

is by no means room for both my father and I to continue jointly 

under one permit. 

Leasing allows me to build my operation and equity to a point 

that is feasible for investments of this magnitude without sticking 

my neck out so far so soon. 

Along with the land costs, some machine costs, cattle expenses, 

interest rates, mortgage costs, etcetera, these are costs that are 

presently spread over my operation as well as my family’s operation while still holding on to the increased income generated by 

the cattle I run on my lease grazing permit, and not having to try 

to withstand these costs as a separate entity. 

Lease elimination would force these costs to both sides independently, therefore causing a financial burden for me, as well as a permittee who is not involved in leasing; being my father. 

I have been ranching full-time for 7 years. The time frame I have 

been given for lease elimination is 7 years. It is very hard to believe that at 29 years old the lifetime of my career choice is half 

over. 

I hope what I have said here today is taken seriously by everyone involved because it is a very, very important topic. At the end 

of the day, this is a topic that does not involve cows, birds, plants, 

etcetera. It involves people. 

How many people can sit in a room as we all are today and honestly give testimony that they love what they do for a living and 

would fight this hard, this long to hold on to it? 

PREPARED STATEMENT

By eliminating leasing on the National Grasslands, myself and 

many others will lose our ability to drive forward and lose the de-
263 

sire that we have, know and the love for our whole lives. Thank 

you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TONY HUSETH

Hello Senator Dorgan and staff, Forest Service representatives, and my fellow 

grazing association members. Thank you for being here and I hope the information 

I am giving to you today is taken into great consideration because it affects the lives 

of many hard working North Dakotans. I am here today to bring to light the hardship facing me, as well as other permitters, if the elimination of leasing, as pertained to grazing permits, on the Sheyenne National Grasslands goes into effect. 

My name is Tony Huseth. I am a rancher on the Sheyenne National Grasslands 

(SNG). I am representing the Sheyenne Valley Grazing Association (SVGA), all 

young ranchers and all those involved in leasing on North Dakota Federal Grasslands. I am 29 years old. I was born and raised on the SNG. My entire life has involved the SNG in some fashion, from growing up as a kid working and learning 

the ways of life and ranching, until present where I still work hard everyday and 

continue to learn and make an honest living. I am a graduate of North Dakota State 

University, where I studied for and received a Bachelors degree in Agricultural Economics. I took many classes that prepared me for the job I am doing such as agricultural marketing classes, animal science classes, as well as plant science classes. 

This was further education towards doing what I loved to do and what I thought 

was an honest and respectable living. The elimination of leasing on the SNG would 

not allow me as a young rancher to secure a future doing what I love and know. 

Eliminating leasing would be a direct negative towards the prosperity of young 

ranchers, or any of the 70 percent of SVGA permitters that are affected by leasing, 

on the SNG. Lease elimination also popes a problem on the state level. One of the 

big issues in North Dakota’s past, present, and future is loss of young people in the 

state due to outward migration. By eliminating leasing, I nor any other young 

rancher with the desire to keep a North Dakota tradition of ranching alive, would 

be able to use the great resource of the SNG as a tool in jump starting their dream. 

This would force me to change careers and run the risk of leaving North Dakota. 

By eliminating leasing on the SNG, we would be elimination jobs in this state. 

I think everyone here knows enough about the ins and outs of leasing presently 

works on the SNG so I won’t go into great detail on its use. The U.S. Forest Service 

and ranchers on the SNG have, as long as I can remember, worked together to 

achieve certain goals. Although these goals may not always be the same they are 

still goals and still need teamwork to achieved. Each side makes sacrifices at some 

point in time, but at the end of the day we are still forging forward. Maybe our goal 

is to improve cow herd health, increase herd productivity, improve financial net 

worth or improve family well being. Maybe our goal is to decrease leafy spurge population, increase endangered species populations or just improving overall grassland 

health. No matter how you look at it all these things need compromise to be 

achieved side by side. This type of compromise has been working since the SNG exchanged ownership from ranchers to the U.S. Government. By eliminating leasing 

this teamwork relationship is put into jeopardy. Eliminating leasing takes a part 

of the equation and slowly squeezes it out. I am just one of the many players that 

run the risk of being squeezed out by this happening. 

I currently lease 480 acres of base property from two separate retired ranchers. 

This 480 acres carries with it two different grazing permits. My permits are for 82 

and 56 head of cattle on the SNG. I currently own 125 head of cattle, on an already 

reduced grazing season, all of which are run in SNG allotments. I also work hand 

in hand with my family operation. My father also ranches on the SNG. My father 

has his own permit, but it is not large enough to sustain both of us together, so 

I took thee opportunity of leasing more land to acquire another permit when the 

chance arose. By obtaining the other leased permits it allowed my father and I to 

increase operation productivity and efficiency while lowering many of the high costs 

involved in agriculture today. As you can see already the elimination of leasing is 

a financial burden to me for various reasons as it will be to all others who lease 

base property. 

By not leasing, I am forced to purchase land on which to pasture my cattle or 

flat out quit ranching completely. This becomes a problem due to the high land costs 

as well as the lack of obtainable pasture land in the immediate area. I am in no 

financial situation yet to purchase the amount of land needed to ranch the same 

cattle numbers I am currently ranching, and there is by no means room for both 

my father and I to continue jointly under one permit. Leasing allows me to build 
264 

my operation and equity to a point that is feasible for investments of this magnitude 

without sticking my neck out so far so soon. Along with land costs come machine 

costs, cattle expenses, interest rates, mortgage costs, etc. These are costs that are 

presently spread over my operation as well as my family’s operation while still holding on to the increased income generated by the cattle I run on my leased grazing 

permit, and not having to try to withstand these costs as separate entities. Lease 

elimination would force these costs to both sides independently, therefore causing 

a financial burden for me as well as a permitter who is not involved in leasing (my 

father). I have been ranching full time for seven years. The time frame I have been 

given for lease elimination is seven years. It is hard to believe that the lifetime of 

my career choice is half over. 

I hope what I have said here today is taken seriously by everyone involved, because it is a very important topic. At the end of the day this is a topic that doesn’t 

involve cows, birds, plants, etc. It involves people. How many people can sit in a 

room as we are today and honestly give testimony that they love what they do for 

a living and would fight this hard and this long to hold on to it. By eliminating leasing on the SNG, myself and many others will lose our ability to drive forward and 

lose the desire that we have known and loved our whole lives. 

Thany you. 

Senator DORGAN. Tony, thank you very much for your comments. 

I’d like to ask a question before we proceed further. How many 

in this room are from an agricultural background; farming, ranching? Let me see some hands. Nearly everyone. 

What I’d like to do, and I’d like to depart just for a moment— 

and this is normally not what we would do in a formal hearing. 

But I want to ask before we ask questions of this panel—which will 

be our final duty and opportunity. 

I want to ask if there are others in the room that would wish 

to stand up and make any comments, brief. Tell me your name. 

We’ll spend a few minutes doing that if there are some of you 

that have come really feel like you’d really like to make a comments, give us your name as you do, and. We have a recorder for 

this hearing. 

If you then wish to send us any written comments, we will attach 

that to the name that you’ve given us and make it a part of the 

official record. 

So just for a few minutes if there’s anyone here that wishes to 

stand up and say a few words, we’re going to limit it a bit, but I 

do want to give anyone here who won’t be able to sleep tonight if 

you don’t have an opportunity to say a few words, I want you to 

have that opportunity. 

Anybody here that wants to do that? Yes, sir. Would you like to 

step to the microphone there. 

Mr. PLUMBER. Yes. Is this too loud? 

Senator DORGAN. No, it’s just fine. Your name? 

Mr. PLUMBER. Doug Plumber. My family has been involved in 

the grasslands and ranching since 1921, and we’ve been involved 

in the Grazing Associations, Little Missouri primarily. 

We got a fourth and fifth generation people on the ranch. However, we had usage of the grasslands and had high production into 

the 1960s. But in the 1960s things started to change, and what 

we’ve laid out today is one of the problems. It isn’t just leasing. 

We’ve had problems with them trying to close down the section 

line roads since the 1962 Memorandum that said the Forest Service could shut down section line roads in North Dakota. And 

they’ve been trying to implement that since 1962. That’s 40 years. 

And this is in direct violation of the law. 
265 

I’m a land surveyor so I kind of know a little bit what I’m talking 

about. These things continue on. They continually doing this. Now 

they’re trying to come in and get adverse possession rights for access on private land. 

This kind of stuff has got to cease. In our democracy, when people continue violate the law, they should either be prosecuted or 

fired or both. 

With that, I’ll be quiet because I think you folks have covered it 

pretty well. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. Thank you. 

Ma’am, did you wish to speak or were you pointing at someone 

else? 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. I got cold feet. 

Senator DORGAN. You got cold feet. Yes. 

Mr. LELAND. Thank you, Senator and Representative for this opportunity. 

I didn’t realize that we would have an opportunity to make comments, but I’m Melvin Leland. I’m President of the North Dakota 

Stock Association, and we are very strong supporters of the Grazing Associations. 

So in the interest of time, I would like to request that we send 

a written report of our statement in to you. 

Senator DORGAN. You’re welcome to leave it with us today and 

it will be a part of the hearing statement. Melvin, we thank you 

very much. 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. HALL. My name is Monte Hall. 

Senator DORGAN. I know you. Let’s keep it to 20 minutes. 

Mr. HALL. I’ll do less. 

Senator DORGAN. I’m just kidding. 

Mr. HALL. I run cattle in the Sheyenne Grazing Association, plus 

I’m on the Weed Board for Ransom County. 

But I will say this straight out. If it wasn’t for the two counties, 

Richland County, Ransom County, going after you to help us to 

take care of this—I think the Forest Service is very poor at taking 

care of their land. If it wasn’t for the ranchers out there taking 

care of it, we would have one hell of a mess out there. 

This is what I wanted to say. We’ve been fighting with the Forest 

Service on this thing all the time, and the other thing is that ah— 

well, I lost my thought. I’m nervous in front of Byron. 

Senator DORGAN. Very unlike you, I might say, to lose your 

thought. 

Let’s just point out that while this hearing is not about weeds 

and leafy spurge, I brought a leafy spurge plant to a committee 

hearing one day. Senator Conrad Burns and I were holding this 

hearing, and I just brought a big old leafy spurge and put it right 

up on the front of the desk so that the Forest Service was testifying. 

I said I wanted them to see what a leafy spurge looks like because they’re not controlling it, and put some money in so that they 

can start—require them to start controlling weeds. 

Part of being a good neighbor is to control your weeds, and the 

Forest Service has a lot to learn there as well. Although they made 

some progress in the last year. 
266 

Mr. HALL. The thing is what I was going to say, if you eliminate 

what the Forest Service wants to do, we’re going to lose our Grazing Associations. Then who is going to take care of the land? It’s 

the ranches been out there taking care of the wells, the fences and 

everything else. They couldn’t find any better partners than the 

ranchers out here. 

To me, it seems the Forest Service stays up all night thinking 

what’s the next thing they can do to the ranchers. It’s the roads. 

It’s this and that. They’re always coming up with something. 

Senator DORGAN. Thank you, Monte. 

Yes, Ma’am. 

Mrs. BURT. I’m Cecelia Burt and I live in Belfield. A few years 

ago my husband died, and I got to rent out my farm and the grazing rights went with it. 

It helped this young man for a long time, and now they want me 

to make out a 7 year lease which, maybe I won’t even live that 

long, and I won’t really make it out because they said if I don’t get 

it in there, then I will lose this ranch or I will lose the grazing 

rights because my lease is coming up this fall. 

That I’m so glad that I came and find out what I did today, and 

I thank you guys. 

Senator DORGAN. Well, thank you for coming over. That’s a 

lengthy drive. Thank you for your thoughts. Yes, Ma’am. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. I’ve been listening here to the Forest Service 

people discuss what they knew and didn’t know about this new policy that went out. 

My question is this: How much of this stuff is written by the Association of Forest Service employees for Environmental Ethics and 

for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility? 

Two organizations that are funded by many of the very foundations that are doing everything to take and close down ranching 

and the life that we know. There’s the Rockefeller Foundation, the 

Mary Renolds-Babcock Foundation, the Town Creek Foundation, 

the Algen Jones Foundation. 

All these foundations are funding these organizations. They are 

employees of the Forest Service, and they are not working for the 

ranchers. Thank you. 

Senator DORGAN. I would suggest you’re certainly welcome as 

well to address a letter to Gail Kimbell. I’m sure she’d be happy 

to respond to a particular inquiry. 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. WISNESS. Thank you for coming today. I would like to send 

my comments in to you. I understand if I send them into you, they 

can be part of the record? 

Senator DORGAN. Yes. Give us your name. 

Mr. WISNESS. Paul Wisness, Hawkins Grain Association. I’ll be 

sending them in to you. 

Senator DORGAN. Thank you, Paul. 

Anyone else? 

Mr. GAEBE. Senator Dorgan and Congressman Pomeroy, my 

name is Lance Gaebe. I work for Governor Hoeven on the major 

cultural issues. 

He asked me to come today to this hearing because we, too, are 

very concerned about the petition’s rules and were as stunned as 
267 

virtually everybody in the room about the way it would go, the directive, and continue to work closely with your offices to try and 

bring them back into check and have the appropriate comments 

made by the Grazing Associations and the grazers. 

I appreciate it. 

Senator DORGAN. Thank you very much. And I know the Governor did meet with some Grazing Association folks as well. 

If he wishes to submit a statement, we will include that in the 

hearing record. Yes, one more. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I’m Mike Schneider. I’m County Commissioner 

from Slope County, which is out in the western part of the State, 

and I would just like to address you on the fact of the out migration that this would cause if we lose our right to lease these lands. 

We’re a county of about 700 people now, and we can’t afford to 

lose any more people out there. We need everyone we can. We need 

good partners to encourage this, and I thank you for your time. 

Senator DORGAN. I believe Slope County is the about the size of 

Rhode Island, the State of Rhode Island? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. We’re about 800,000 acres and of that about 

130,000 acres are horse—— 

Senator DORGAN. Just fewer than 800 people; is that right? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Yeah, about 700 now. 

Senator DORGAN. Well, let me thank you, all of you, who also 

contributed your thoughts. I’m going to make a couple of comments 

and questions. 

First of all, Randy and Keith and others, you’ve worked a long 

while on Forest Service issues and issues that attend to the grasslands. We have had management of the grasslands active and originally a lead partnership with the Grazing Associations for decades 

and decades; is that not correct? 

Can you give me just a bit of history of when the Grazing Associations were formed and how long they’ve been involved in the 

management of those grasslands and the grazing rights. 

Mr. MOSSER. Well, the Medora Grazing Association was formed 

in 1937. Like I said before, the permits were issued depending 

upon the number of livestock that you run 7 years prior to 1937. 

I think some other associations were formed a little later than 

that. I think McKenzie was the same year. 

Senator DORGAN. It’s one thing to disagree with the landlord, in 

this case, the Forest Service. They have legal responsibility for 

management. It’s one thing to disagree with them. It’s another 

thing to learn what’s happening through the newspaper or by turning on the television. 

I understand there are some who just don’t like the fact that the 

Forest Service or any federal agency is involved in any way on 

these lands, and yet, they are owned by the American people. They 

are in public hands and so there will be management of the lands. 

The question is what kind of management. 

We would expect, and I think Congressman Pomeroy’s questions 

and my questions to the Forest Service indicated that we expect 

there will be consultation and a partnership here. 

Can any of you describe to me whether that partnership has improved in recent years? I described the circumstance with Dave 

that, you know, where we got what is effectively the Regional For-
268 

ester for grasslands here, but what we learned this morning is this 

policy comes from on high, kind of over the heads of the local folks, 

and without consultation. 

Give me your assessment of what kind of consultation has existed, maybe Keith and Randy especially, if any. 

Mr. WINTER. On this issue, Senator, as you articulated very well 

this morning, there was no consultation. Two years ago we sent a 

letter that Earl put into the record here and we heard virtually— 

we had a meeting with the State presidents at that time on this 

issue, and since then we’ve heard nothing until us and yourself and 

the Governor’s office was sort of stunned by the announcement. 

Over the years, yes, it is Federal land. I think we fully understand that. We sold the land to them for the multiple use purpose. 

We understand that there will be Federal oversight, and I think 

we feel very strongly that our 7 years of the operation of these 

lands has stood the test of the time and we do not know if we need 

a big left-hand turn now. 

Are there problems out there? Sure. There always has been. 

Mother Nature provides many of them. We would like to continue 

working on them in a cooperative way like we always have. 

Senator DORGAN. What’s the condition of the grasslands at this 

point in your judgement? 

Mr. WINTER. In our judgement within the realms of Mother Nature we think in very good shape. Of course the rainfall has so 

much to do with it. It’s been a pretty good year out there this year, 

including the Sheyenne Grasslands. 

But that question was answered by the SRT and with the scientific review team, and we resubmitted a few questions to clarify 

that issue. Hopefully they are going to be answered. 

Senator DORGAN. Have you gone through the 16 chapters in that 

handbook in some detail, and can you separate the new from the 

old? 

Mr. WINTER. We went through Chapter 10 and 20 with great detail. Yes, we can, and we have. Some of—the leasing issue has been 

withdrawn, but there are some other issues that they left in that— 

the direct permits, for instance, is still in the interim role. 

The other things have been withdrawn, but there are many, 

many issues. We articulated a few of them here, but there are 

many issues. 

Senator DORGAN. What if somebody said, you know, Keith and 

Randy, you’re just complainers. This is much ado about nothing; 

this doesn’t have any impact. What’s your response to that? 

Mr. WINTER. I think Tony down here articulated that very well. 

Senator DORGAN. In your assessment of the grazing associations 

and the ranchers involved, this will have real consequences for who 

would be able to continue to ranch? 

Mr. WINTER. Absolutely. 

Senator DORGAN. It would have real consequences for the region 

and the economy and the communities out there? 

Mr. WINTER. Yes. 

Senator DORGAN. That are supported by the ranchers? 

Mr. WINTER. Yes, that and the other issues. It’s not just one 

issue. It’s many issues in this interim directive. 
269 

Senator DORGAN. Let me just finally ask, you didn’t respond to 

the question maybe deliberately. 

When we finally set up the equivalent of the Regional Forester 

here for the grasslands and have someone here, has that improved 

things or not? And if not, why not? 

Mr. WINTER. Questionable. There is the left-hand turn, the many 

issues that have come up, which includes the Dakota Prairie Grasslands. These issues have all come about since the grassland supervisor got appointed here. So there has been many contentious 

issues in the past 6, 7 years. 

How is it going to play out? With your help hopefully we can direct the results. But no, it is not. It seems like we’re more in contentions. Is that right, Randy? 

Mr. MOSSER. Yes. 

Mr. WINTER. We’ve got more contentious issues than we had before the Bismarck office came in play. 

Senator DORGAN. I’m going to call on Congressman Pomeroy for 

a couple of questions to complete this. 

I want to mention again, Conrad Burns who is the chairman and 

I am the ranking democrat of the subcommittee. Conrad Burns, 

Senator Burns, feels very strongly about the Forest Service practices as well. 

He and I have had a discussion by telephone last week about this 

entire area, and he is, I think, as prepared as I am to take action 

that’s necessary to make sure the result here is a fair result and 

the right result. 

I also want to mention, again, that Senator Conrad I know met 

with you, and in fact, we were in Medora the same day when we 

met with a number of groups and Congressman Pomeroy has. 

I also wanted to say that Bruce Evans, who is here on behalf of— 

Bruce is right over here—on behalf of Conrad Burns and Peter 

Kiefhaber and Rachael Taylor, all of whom work on the subcommittee, this Appropriations subcommittee has jurisdiction over 

funding for the Forest Service. These three are experts in this area 

and will be very instrumental in helping us determine what we do 

as we proceed to deal with these issues. 

It’s also true as Congressman Pomeroy suggested that the authorizing committees will have a lot to say. From time to time 

when the authorizing committees don’t take action, we stick it in 

an appropriations bill and it causes all kinds of anguish, but it’s 

hard to get out of an appropriations bill and stick something in. So 

we’re going to have an opportunity to address this. 

My first and best hope will be that the Forest Service hears loudly and clearly exactly what the problem is, what the urgency is to 

address this and has heard sufficient information this morning to 

understand. 

This is not much ado about nothing. This is a very serious and 

a very important issue that they should take seriously. And I 

would hope their first step would be to decide the process by which 

this handbook was delivered without proper consultation, should 

persuade them, bring it back, start over and do it right. 

Whatever policies exist in the handbook when it’s done right 

should be policies that are consistent with the needs that exist here 

with respect to Grazing Associations, ranchers, multiple use of the 
270 

lands. But you would get that consistency by sitting down and having a discussion and using a good dose of common sense. 

When those discussions don’t happen, I think these things move 

off in the wrong direction, and that’s what we have in front of us 

today. 

Congressman Pomeroy. 

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Senator Dorgan. I want to congratulate everyone who spoke. I think to a person you articulated perfectly the sense that has been expressed to me of how ranchers 

have reacted to the proposals. 

The great line from the movie Cool Hand Luke, ‘‘What we have 

here is a failure to communicate,’’ seems to have some implication. 

Ms. Kimbell said that they make every effort to, ‘‘work in a collaborative way’’ with the ranchers. She said, ‘‘We make every effort 

to engage the public.’’ 

I’m just wondering if it’s your sense, I’d like to ask the panel 

right across whether it’s your sense as stakeholders in interaction 

with the Forest Service on these lands, whether it’s your perception 

that they work in a collaborative way, whether it’s your sense that 

they make every effort to engage the public? 

We’ll start with you, Joe, and just we’ll work right on down. 

Mr. MILTON. To answer your question, Congressman, which is a 

very good question, I don’t believe that they do. 

I think that they have a tendency to bow to the pressures from 

outside that would restrict them in making good judgment. And 

they follow sometimes, like I said, poor judgment in doing their decision. They use theory rather than facts, and there’s several instances where this has been the case. 

Mr. WINTER. I think there’s a lot of direction that comes down 

from the top on the Forest Service, and that’s where the collaboration and the consultation is not there. 

On a local level there are some very fine Forest Service people 

that we work with very well on the issues, and it sort of depends 

a little bit on which local people you have in charge at that particular time. 

At the particular time in our association we have very good cooperation with the ranger people, but the idea the National Forest 

policies should be implemented on the grasslands is like trying to 

drive a square peg in a round hole. And that’s where the rub 

comes. 

Mr. MOSSER. Well, I think basically what a lot of it comes down 

to, I think we have a lack of trust. They don’t seem to coordinate 

with us what they’re planning to do or how they’re going to do it. 

And I know some of our local range cons and that show the same 

frustration, too. 

But no, there isn’t the cooperation consultation. 

Mr. ANDERSON. I don’t think that there is either, but I think 

it’s—they’ve kind of admitted that they have a communication 

problem within their organization, and then that filters down 

through us and we get one side—somebody says one thing and the 

next guy says the other thing. 

So it’s communication and goes back to what Randy said; then 

there’s trust issues. A lot of it is communication. 
271 

Mr. HUSETH. I’d have to strongly agree with the statement that 

Keith made. On a local level there’s a lot of range cons and people 

on local levels that really seem to understand where we’re coming 

from and the goals that we have, and that makes it a lot easier, 

like I said in my statement, that both sides have to compromise. 

It makes it a lot easier for them to compromise with us knowing 

what we want and what we need, and that allows us to compromise and understand where they’re coming from as well. 

But like the other guys stated, when you’re working on so many 

levels, the waterfall effect, from one stage to the next, there’s too 

much miscommunication in between those levels. So I think it 

comes from the higher up down to the local. 

Mr. POMEROY. I think your statements are very well made. I 

have a hunch that those of the grass roots level interacting so 

closely have the best understanding of what you’re dealing with. 

And you know, sometimes notions break down a little bit when you 

actually confront them with reality. 

So these notions that they have in Washington don’t actually 

work out here in the ground. They don’t even want to hear it. They 

just want to do it. So they cut out the range cons from the process. 

Sir, go ahead. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. Just a quick comment. 

Mr. POMEROY. If you’d identify yourself, please. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER. I’m sorry. Gary Tesher. I live out by Squaw 

Gap, McKenzie County Grazing Association. 

To reiterate what you people have said, and I think what you 

people have implied is my major concern with our situation now, 

is I think we’re being bullied by the Forest Service. 

I think we’re a very important cog in this equation, and I think, 

like these people have said, it’s the range cons and that, some of 

those are pretty good to work with. But further up people, I think 

we’re more of an irritation than anything, and I don’t think that’s 

right. 

I’ve seen the change—I’ve only been ranching 30 years, but I’ve 

seen quite a change in them years that we were pretty high on the 

totem pole then, but it’s just getting lower all the time. 

I would certainly like to see a change in attitude. My guess is 

it probably started to take place a couple hours ago. Thanks. 

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Mr. Tesher. I would just conclude, 

final comment. I think that this has been a very serious agency 

mistake. I don’t think I’ve ever seen one quite like it, and it 

couldn’t have come in my view at a worse time because the scientific review team has completed their work relative to the discussions we’ll be having upcoming on the Range Management Plan, 

Grasslands Management Plan. 

We’ve got a lot of very heavy lifting in front of us. So to have 

these interim directives shoved down our throat like was attempted 

absolutely blowing up trust and devastating whatever confidence 

there might be in us getting to some kind of working relationship, 

and I’m not just speaking about my constituents here. I’m speaking 

about me and representing North Dakota in the House. 

I believe that it’s going to take a long time for me to get over 

how this has been handled, and we’re not nearly through working 
272 

our way through the various points of controversy these directives 

have advanced anyway. 

So to me, if strategically the agency wanted to look at what’s the 

worst thing we can do before we have to sit down and work this 

management plan over, this interim directive would have been just 

the perfect solution, and we’ll all have to work extra hard to, I 

think, change course and get things back on a more constructive 

path. 

Senator Dorgan, again, thank you very much for allowing me to 

participate in this hearing. 

Senator DORGAN. Congressman Pomeroy, thank you for your 

work and thank you for being here. 

You know, there have been times when we have disagreed, the 

grazing associations and myself. I mean, I’ve been willing when 

you’ve come at me with certain things, if I think your wrong, I’ve 

said it; I think you’re wrong about this. 

But you’re not wrong about this. You’re right about this, and this 

is something of significant consequence. This is a big deal, and 

could have a significant imprint on what kind of future we have 

in and around areas of the grasslands. 

Are we going to have families living out there under yard lights 

trying to run a farm on a ranch or are we not? 

So the reason we called this hearing is this is an issue of great 

consequence and it needs to be addressed. This is not something 

that can’t be repaired. 

It can be repaired. It can be fixed. And my hope is the Chief of 

the Forest Service, Regional Forester and others will understand 

that this must be fixed. And the way to move forward is through 

consultation and working together. We have a common interest 

here. 

Let me just finally say that while this has all has been very serious, I want to tell you about a rancher that I’ve told people about 

for years and years. 

I grew up in western North Dakota and I got a call when I was 

in the U.S. House many, many years ago from a rancher who—and 

ranchers are plain spoken. They tell you exactly what’s on their 

mind, and they use as few of words as possible. 

He called me and he was furious. I forget what the issue was. 

It’s been many years now. And he was so upset. He concluded his 

harangue at me by saying, ‘‘Byron, you either fix this or, by God, 

I’m going to fix you!’’ 

I said to him, ‘‘Are you trying to threaten me?’’ 

He said, ‘‘Hell, yes! I thought I made that clear.’’ 

I knew it wasn’t physical. It was just he just wanted to give me 

a long—but you know, the fact is, you know, people are pretty plain 

spoken about things that get under their skin. This is one of those 

circumstances where we can’t ignore this. This is an issue that 

should not and cannot be ignored because it will have great consequence for our state and for families who work and live in our 

state. 

So let me thank all of you who have driven some ways to be 

here. The Bismarck location was just the most opportune location 

to do this as early as was possible. It also allowed some folks from 

Sheyenne to get over here more easily. 
273 

But I know many of you have driven a long, long ways coming 

in from Belfield this morning and Watford City and north of 

Williston and so on. Thank you for doing that. 

Mr. WINTER. We’d also like to thank you for having this hearing 

and coming from Washington, DC. 

Senator DORGAN. Well, we will continue to work on this, and I 

will look to hearing a response from the Chief of the Forest Service 

a week from Friday. 

In the mean time, we have—if you’ve signed in, we have your 

sign-in name and we’ll keep in touch with you about all that we 

have learned. 

CONCLUSION OF HEARING

Thank you all very much for being here. That concludes our 

hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., Tuesday, August 30, the hearing was 

concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 

Æ