    [Senate Hearing 115-263]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-263

     COLLABORATIVE INITIATIVES: RESTORING WATERSHEDS AND LARGE LANDSCAPES
            ACROSS BOUNDARIES THROUGH STATE AND FEDERAL PARTNERSHIPS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                       PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 21, 2017

                                   __________

     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    26-076                      WASHINGTON : 2018

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama              CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
                                     ------

               Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining

                               MIKE LEE, Chairman

    JOHN BARRASSO                        RON WYDEN
    JAMES E. RISCH                       DEBBIE STABENOW
    JEFF FLAKE                           AL FRANKEN
    STEVE DAINES                         JOE MANCHIN III
    CORY GARDNER                         MARTIN HEINRICH
    LAMAR ALEXANDER                      MAZIE K. HIRONO
    JOHN HOEVEN                          CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO
    BILL CASSIDY
    LUTHER STRANGE

                          Colin Hayes, Staff Director
                    Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel
       Lucy Murfitt, Senior Counsel and Public Lands & Natural Resources
                                Policy Director
                    Lane Dickson, Professional Staff Member
               Angela Becker-Dippmann, Democratic Staff Director
                    Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
            Melanie Stansbury, Democratic Professional Staff Member

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Lee, Hon. Mike, Subcommittee Chairman and a U.S. Senator from
      Utah...........................................................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Bail, Kristin, Assistant Director for Resources and Planning,
      Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior.....     2
    Weldon, Leslie, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S.
      Department of Agriculture, Forest Service......................    11
    Moore, Virgil, Director, State of Idaho Department of Fish and
      Game, on behalf of the Association of Fish and Wildlife
      Agencies.......................................................    18
    Thompson, Tyler, Director, Utah's Watershed Restoration
      Initiative, Utah Department of Natural Resources...............    29

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Bail, Kristin:
        Opening Statement............................................     2
        Written Testimony............................................     5
    Kruse, Dylan:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    48
    Lee, Hon. Mike:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    Moore, Virgil:
        Opening Statement............................................    18
        Written Testimony............................................    20
    Thompson, Tyler:
        Opening Statement............................................    29
        Written Testimony............................................    31
    Weldon, Leslie:
        Opening Statement............................................    11
        Written Testimony............................................    13

     COLLABORATIVE INITIATIVES: RESTORING WATERSHEDS AND LARGE LANDSCAPES
            ACROSS BOUNDARIES THROUGH STATE AND FEDERAL PARTNERSHIPS

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2017

                                   U.S. Senate,
     Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Lee,
    Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE,
                         U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

        Senator Lee [presiding]. The hearing of the Senate Energy
    and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests,
    and Mining, will come to order.
        The purpose of today's hearing is to discuss the success
    and benefits of collaborative initiatives to restore watersheds
    and large landscapes. Millions of acres of watersheds and
    critical landscapes across the country are deteriorating.
    Invasive species, catastrophic wildfires, and inadequate
    management have badly damaged these lands and continue to
    threaten the health of the same lands. These problems are not
    exclusive to federal lands, of course. Many state and private
    lands face similar threats. Healthy watersheds are essential to
    our environment. They are necessary for our economy and to our
    well-being. They support everything from water quality and
    wildlife habitat to livestock grazing, timber harvesting, and
    recreational opportunities for the American people.
        We have to find innovative ways to restore these lands to
    ensure that they can support these vital functions in the
    future. The haphazard way these lands are managed has proved to
    be one of the biggest obstacles to restoring them. Too often
    federal, state, and local lands are managed independently of
    one another, as if they were in separate universes, with little
    or no coordination between neighboring land managers. This
    patchwork of management strategies tends to breed confusion, it
    tends to create a certain amount of distrust, and it tends to
    produce less than ideal and even bad outcomes with the land
    itself.
        Thankfully, that is not the end of the story. In some parts
    of the country, land managers have cooperated with one another
    to solve these problems, and the results of that kind of
    cooperation are quite promising. One solution they have come up
    with is ``collaborative initiatives.'' These initiatives bring
    together federal, state, and tribal land managers, as well as
    private landowners, to cooperate on landscape restoration
    projects across ownership boundaries so that people do not
    remain in these independent silos focusing only on that which
    is immediately within their stewardship.
        A good example of such an initiative can be found in my own
    state, in the State of Utah. In response to the deteriorating
    condition of watersheds on public and private lands, federal
    and state officials came together and formed the Watershed
    Restoration Initiative, or WRI. For over 12 years, the WRI has
    brought federal, state, and private stakeholders together to
    resolve some of the state's most vexing land management issues
    and restore essential watersheds. To date, WRI has completed
    more than 1,600 projects and restored more than 1.3 million
    acres of land. Another 287 projects spanning 280,000 acres are
    currently underway. Like so much else in politics, WRI is
    successful because it relies on locally-driven, bottom-up
    solutions. WRI's organizational structure empowers regional
    teams and not far-off bureaucracy to identify and prioritize
    projects.
        Collaborative initiatives are true state-based solutions to
    the problems we face. When we let states take the lead, we
    avoid the partisan bickering and red tape that can bog down
    projects by the Federal Government. Today we are going to hear
    about collaborative initiatives that are transforming land
    management across the Western United States. I look forward to
    hearing from our witnesses, who play important roles in these
    successful initiatives.
        I want to quickly introduce each of you and then we will
    proceed to your testimony.
        First, we are going to hear from Ms. Kristin Bail,
    Assistant Director for Resources and Planning for the Bureau of
    Land Management (BLM). Next we will have Ms. Leslie Weldon,
    Deputy Chief for the U.S. Forest Service. Then we will hear
    from Mr. Virgil Moore, Director of the Idaho Department of Fish
    and Game. He is also testifying on behalf of the Association of
    Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Finally, we will hear from Mr.
    Tyler Thompson, Watershed Program Director at the Utah
    Department of Natural Resources. Tyler and the Watershed
    Restoration Initiative are doing outstanding work on the ground
    in Utah.
        Thank you all for being here to testify today, and thank
    you for the great benefit that you confer to federal, state and
    private lands throughout our country and in the parts of the
    country where you work.
        With that, the Committee recognizes Ms. Bail.

    STATEMENT OF KRISTIN BAIL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR RESOURCES AND
      PLANNING, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
                                INTERIOR

        Ms. Bail. Thank you and good morning, Chairman Lee.
        As you said, I am Kristin Bail. I am the BLM's Assistant
    Director for Resources and Planning. And thank you for the
    opportunity to discuss the Bureau of Land Management's efforts
    to advance the on-the-ground landscape restoration and
    conservation of natural and cultural resources through
    collaborative partnerships.
        The BLM is extremely proud to partner with states, local
    governments, counties, tribes and other organizations. The
    relationships we build with our partners are crucial for our
    ability to successfully manage the vast public lands and the
    diverse uses they offer. They help us solve management
    challenges across jurisdictional boundaries, leverage
    resources, create new economic opportunities for local
    businesses and enhance the enjoyment and use of America's
    public lands.
        Nationally, the BLM manages more than 245 million acres of
    surface land and 700 million acres of subsurface mineral estate
    on behalf of the American people. The Federal Land Policy
    Management Act (FLPMA) sets forth the BLM's multiple use
    mission directing that public lands be managed for a variety of
    uses such as conventional and renewable energy development,
    livestock grazing, conservation, mining, watershed protection,
    hunting, fishing, and other forms of recreation and it requires
    that various resources be managed on a sustained-yield basis.
        BLM-managed public lands encompass an incredible number of
    unique ecosystems from the high Mesas, deep canyons and
    spectacular arches of Utah's San Rafael Swell to the glacier-
    carved gorges of Oregon's high desert. These lands provide
    forage for livestock, habitat for big game and other species of
    fish and wildlife, harvestable forest products and rewarding
    opportunities for all types of outdoor recreation.
        The BLM strongly supports locally-driven partnership
    efforts to ensure that these valuable public land resources are
    preserved for the benefit of present and future generations.
    The BLM depends on countless partnerships nationwide to manage
    public lands and they are instrumental to our efforts to
    increase public access, facilitate outdoor recreation, control
    invasive species, reduce wildfire risk, and enhance
    conservation.
        My written statement discusses 15 examples, but right now I
    would like to highlight two that have been particularly
    successful at restoring large landscapes--the Utah Watershed
    Restoration Initiative, also known as WRI, and Restore New
    Mexico.
        WRI is a partnership between the BLM, the State of Utah,
    other federal agencies, hunting and fishing groups, private
    landowners and many others that aims to improve water quality
    and quantity, reduce catastrophic wildfire risk, develop
    sustainable agriculture and improve forage and wildlife
    habitat. The BLM, State of Utah, and other partners have
    provided millions of dollars in funding to accomplish on-the-
    ground work for projects that provide the most value to local
    communities. Since 2006, more than 1,800 projects have been
    completed or are currently in progress which have treated about
    1.6 million acres and restored over 400 miles of streams to
    proper functioning condition. Notable recent projects include
    removal of pinyon pine and juniper, the installation of guzzler
    systems and hazardous fuel reduction to improve habitat and
    ranges for greater sage grouse, mule deer, elk and pronghorn.
        Like WRI, Restore New Mexico is a partnership between the
    BLM, the State of New Mexico, ranchers, industry and other
    local organizations to restore more than three million acres of
    grasslands, woodlands and riparian areas across the state that
    had been degraded by invasive species and woodland
    encroachment. This initiative also includes the reclamation of
    oil and gas legacy roads, pads and other infrastructure that is
    no longer needed which improves habitat for sensitive species
    of wildlife and plants.
        The BLM has a track record of developing robust
    partnerships to make land management more effective and
    responsive to the needs of local communities while maintaining
    our federal trust resource responsibilities. That said, we know
    there are ways to further improve our work. The BLM looks
    forward to working with the Subcommittee and Congress on this
    important issue.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony and
    I would be glad to answer questions that you may have.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Bail follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Lee. Thank you, Ms. Bail.
        Ms. Weldon.

       STATEMENT OF LESLIE WELDON, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
                SYSTEM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
                             FOREST SERVICE

        Ms. Weldon. Thank you very much and good morning Chairman
    Lee. We really appreciate being part of the conversation this
    morning.
        We also want to share with you the work the Forest Service
    is doing across boundaries through others with collaborative
    initiatives to deliver the mission for the Forest Service.
    Collaborative initiatives have helped the Forest Service to
    deepen relationships that are improving management of
    watersheds and large landscapes and delivering goods and
    services to the public.
        Collaboration has emerged as a primary principle for
    delivering the work of the Forest Service, and we achieve our
    most successful outcomes when we do it with and through others
    across boundaries and with an eye toward sharing commitment and
    stewardship. This is a principle that is shared well with
    states, local governments, industry, NGO's, private landowners
    and interested citizens who are also at the table. Tribes also
    play a key role in shared stewardship as well under the Tribal
    Trust and Treaty Rights Responsibilities held by the Federal
    Government.
        Collaborative outcomes are the foundation for the 2012
    Planning Rule and for outcomes described in the Farm bill,
    Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, Secure Rural
    Schools (SRS), the Wyden Amendment and other legislation.
        Collaborative initiatives are also helping to leverage
    funds and expertise, boost innovation and speed up the
    timelines for getting projects done. They're a model for
    interagency coordination across states, federal and private
    lands and help us to do more critical work on our nation's
    forests, deep in shared stewardship with the communities we
    serve and can lead to more durable solutions to complex issues.
        Today I'd just like to highlight a few examples for that,
    including the Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative, which
    we'll hear a lot about today, the Forest and Focus Initiative
    in Montana and our partnership with water providers in
    Colorado. I'll also highlight some efforts under the Good
    Neighbor Authority and some other collaborative projects we
    have.
        So as Kristin stated with the Utah Watershed Restoration
    Initiative, the Forest Service is also a part of that. And
    according to our local forest supervisors, the over $500,000
    that the Forest Service has invested so far on an annual basis,
    is returning seven times over in collaborative projects across
    the state on the ground with our forest there. We hope the Utah
    Watershed Restoration Initiative can be a model in other states
    for how we can work across federal, state and private land
    ownerships and harness the power of partnerships on crucial
    restoration projects.
        Montana Governor Steve Bullock's unique forest restoration
    initiative, called Forest and Focus, is designed to address
    forest restoration and industry retention, collaboration and
    partnerships and restoration of tribal, state and forest lands.
    It is investing millions of dollars in projects across
    boundaries to accomplish priority projects including hiring
    state Forest Service liaisons--positions that focus on forest
    restoration activities across landscapes. We're grateful for
    Governor Bullock for the investment he's made of $2 million
    from the Montana Fire Suppression Account to engage directly
    with the Forest Service on projects, and he's currently
    investing in 25 projects statewide which will result in
    supporting mills and sustaining 3,000 jobs.
        In Colorado, the Forest Service has partnered with
    municipal water utilities, conservation districts, businesses
    and state partners to support forest and watershed restoration.
    Collectively, our water provider partners have contributed over
    $28 million which has been matched by $31 million in Forest
    Service funding for vegetation and watershed restoration
    treatments, all of which are serving the water users through
    restoring watersheds that have been affected by wildfire and
    preventing wildfire risk against communities.
        Under the Good Neighbor Authority, the Forest Service is
    working with states to treat more acres across our forested
    landscapes and grasslands. This authority increases our
    capacity by allowing us to work with states in identifying
    shared priorities for forest management and to access state
    agency expertise to accomplish restoration work. We have
    currently executed 83 Good Neighbor agreements in 29 states
    with more work coming online.
        In conclusion, we are most successful when we work together
    with state agencies and other organizations to focus on
    highest-
    priority needs to benefit land in surrounding communities.
    We're honored to be stewards of the nation's forest and seek to
    do this best through working with and through others and across
    boundaries as the best way to ensure we're of service to the
    needs for citizens and for those landscapes.
        I look forward to answering any questions you have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Weldon follows:]
       [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Lee. Thank you.
        Next we will hear from Mr. Moore.

    STATEMENT OF VIRGIL MOORE, DIRECTOR, STATE OF IDAHO DEPARTMENT
                  OF FISH AND GAME, ON BEHALF OF THE
               ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES

        Mr. Moore. Thank you, Chairman Lee, especially for getting
    this hearing rescheduled for us today so we could be here, and
    I appreciate the work of the Subcommittee staff in getting that
    done.
        I'm Virgil Moore, Vice President of the Association of Fish
    and Wildlife Agencies and currently Director of Idaho Fish and
    Game. The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies has been
    around for a while, 1902, and the Association has been involved
    in almost every piece of major legislation relative to federal
    agencies, many of them having a collaborative foundation from
    the very get-go. The Migratory Bird Act was one of those early
    efforts at collaboration among states and Federal Governments
    and international boundaries.
        Collaboratives come in all sizes and shapes. Some are very
    large. Some of them are small and very local. Some are topical.
    They're focused on water. They could be focused on an
    individual species initially. They could be focused on an
    output.
        But in our, in my experience, I think Senator Crapo, in a
    comment he made about collaboratives--he's been a huge
    supporter of that--is ``Collaboration breaks barriers.
    Collaboration brings people together to find common
    solutions.'' And my written comments are extensive relative to
    a number of examples, but I want to talk a little bit about my
    involvement in collaborative endeavors at the state, regional
    and national scale.
        I found that structured collaboration can be an incredibly
    powerful and effective way for parties with overlapping
    interests and authorities to come together at the state and
    federal level to assist local communities and local entities to
    get things done, to just flat, get things done. And our working
    landscapes have to be sustainable both on a federal, state and
    private basis for those communities that rely on them, whether
    those communities are national in scope or otherwise. But I
    also have the perspective as a State Director and as a
    representative of the Association of Fish and Wildlife
    Agencies, that state authority and sovereignty, relative to
    fish and wildlife, has to be known and respected in these
    collaboratives and typically, they are, as we move forward.
        Our ability to manage fish and wildlife and the trust
    responsibility that comes from that is something that is very
    important as we move through these. Really though, we can call
    them collaboratives today, but our history demonstrates long-
    standing, cultural tradition of people and communities working
    together to achieve those common objectives that they need for
    their communities, big and small.
        We recognize wildlife is international and that it does
    cross state boundaries, as well as land ownership boundaries. I
    think the recognition that in the West, Idaho is 63 percent
    federally owned--there's another five percent that's state-
    owned properties--making for a whopping two-thirds of the state
    in public ownership. That makes those private lands, most of
    which are very productive agricultural or set at the bottoms of
    some of these federal and state landscapes where we have the
    most productive areas--that's why they were homesteaded--
    extremely important to keeping the functioning of all those
    together. What I will tell you though is that of all of these
    ventures and entities that are out there--things like the North
    American Waterfowl Act that has the joint ventures is one of
    the more productive--we've got 18 of those nationally across
    the state.
        I've got a whole series of these initiatives that are out
    there that function on a national scale but some of them, most
    recently, have been the ones that are most important and those
    that address things like prescribed fire. Here's one that's
    really been tough for the Forest Service and for the state
    where we need to manage large landscapes with fire and those
    problems extend a long ways. You burn something in Idaho, it
    gets to Missoula. You create an issue in terms of trying to
    execute collaborative management in the Clearwater Basin
    Collaborative in a whole different state and ecosystem. Those
    are difficult to do but need to be executed. It is these
    collaboratives that are going to make those possible.
        I'll point out the two state collaboratives here real
    quick, while I'm running out of time--but the Idaho Roadless
    Plan that Senator Risch, when he was Governor, promoted and the
    Idaho Sage Grouse Plan that Governor Otter promoted, that I co-
    chaired, are examples of statewide collaboratives that were
    very important.
        Thank you, Senator Lee.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Lee. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Thompson.

             STATEMENT OF TYLER THOMPSON, DIRECTOR, UTAH'S
     WATERSHED RESTORATION INITIATIVE, UTAH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
                               RESOURCES

        Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman Lee, for the opportunity
    to testify before this Committee today about Utah's Watershed
    Restoration Initiative, or WRI. As an employee of the Utah
    Department of Natural Resources, I currently serve as the
    Director of WRI. WRI is one of the West's unique success
    stories. It ensures that federal, state and local partners can
    work together across ownership boundaries with unmatched speed
    and efficiency to improve large landscapes.
        Utah's WRI focuses on improving three key things: watershed
    health and biological diversity, water quality and yield, and
    opportunities for sustainable uses of natural resources. Now
    entering its 12th year, the WRI partnership has completed more
    than 1,600 projects and restored more than 1.3 million acres on
    federal, state and private lands in Utah. Investment from over
    500 unique funding sources now exceeds $160 million. Most of
    that funding comes from federal and state sources including, on
    average, more than $5 million annually from the State of Utah,
    over $7 million annually from federal sources, and nearly $2
    million annually from sportsmen's groups.
        Like many successful programs before it, WRI developed out
    of crisis. In the early 2000s, Utah was in the midst of a long-
    term drought. Across the state, sagebrush ecosystems were in
    decline as pinyon and juniper trees continued to crowd out
    understory forage plants necessary for both livestock and
    wildlife. Aspen was in decline and invasive species, such as
    cheatgrass, were beginning to dominate large landscapes after
    more frequent and widespread wildfires.
        Utah's WRI has organized itself as a bottom-up initiative
    with five independent regional teams. These teams consist of
    regional resource professionals from federal, state and local
    agencies, as well as sportsmen's groups, environmental
    organizations, private landowners and other natural-resource-
    oriented groups. These regional teams identify where
    restoration projects are needed and what needs to be done. The
    teams annually rank their project proposals with guidance from
    WRI administration, which then matches the proposals, in ranked
    order, to appropriate and willing funding sources until funds
    are exhausted. The regional teams then help each other
    implement large-scale restoration projects across ownership
    boundaries.
        For Utah's damaged landscapes, WRI is making a huge
    difference. Burned areas are swiftly being reseeded with plants
    beneficial to wildlife and livestock; stream and riparian
    restoration has improved water flow and quality; sagebrush and
    aspen ecosystems are being restored, benefiting hundreds of
    species that rely on them for food and shelter; sage grouse and
    other at-risk wildlife species are holding steady or increasing
    in numbers; and Utah's sportsmen are enjoying healthier and
    more abundant game statewide.
        Today, I'd like to highlight a few of the more important
    strategies that have helped WRI to be successful over the last
    12 years.
        First. Utah's Department of Natural Resources, or DNR, has
    taken on the major organizing role in WRI. Through federal
    authorities, such as the Wyden Amendment and the Good Neighbor
    Authority, federal agencies have developed assistance
    agreements with DNR. Those agreements send federal funds to be
    pooled with other state and non-governmental resources. This
    allows WRI to fund and complete restoration work across
    ownership boundaries on a larger scale, at a much quicker pace
    and for a fraction of the cost. Over the life of the
    initiative, DNR has routed more than $44 million in federal
    funds through WRI, without taking a dime in overhead.
        Second. The state government system of awarding competitive
    contracts is much more efficient than the federal system. This
    allows WRI to quickly implement restoration projects and
    wildfire rehabilitation by swiftly purchasing seed, completing
    cultural resource surveys and hiring contractors to complete
    the work.
        Third. WRI encourages regional teams to complete large-
    scale, cross-boundary, programmatic NEPA work. To advance this
    effort, WRI has developed a special funding source to help
    federal agencies complete the NEPA process in areas where
    restoration is desperately needed but, due to other priorities,
    federal land management agencies may not have the time or staff
    to dedicate to the analysis. WRI-NEPA funds are being made
    available to fund overtime hours for current federal employees
    or to hire outside contractors to help complete this critical
    NEPA work.
        In summary, WRI tackles landscape scale challenges with a
    powerful, effective partnership.
        Thank you again for the opportunity.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
       [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Lee. Thanks to all of you for your prepared
    testimony. We are now going to have some questions and this
    gives me a unique opportunity, especially if we do not have any
    other members show up, that gives me more time to ask
    questions. So I appreciate your willingness to answer them.
        Mr. Thompson, let's start with you. Wildfire is obviously a
    concern in Utah, as it is in most parts of the Western United
    States. Certainly, it is something that challenges everyone
    everywhere with the type of land susceptible to wildfires, but
    we have a whole lot of those lands in the Western United States
    and especially in Utah. Wildfires burned about 100,000 acres in
    Utah just last year alone--that is a big deal.
        Now our policy discussions often focus, somewhat
    understandably, on fire prevention efforts and on fire
    suppression efforts. It is not surprising that that is the
    case, but it is also important to recognize the significance
    and the deep importance of wildfire rehabilitation because what
    you do after a wildfire can determine a lot in terms of the
    ultimate outcome.
        You referenced WRI's work with wildfire rehabilitation in
    your testimony. I understand the group's efforts on that front
    have been extraordinarily effective. Can you briefly explain to
    us how the program works and why it has been successful?
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman Lee. Thank you.
        Utah's program is unique. We've taken this WRI partnership
    and we've utilized it to complete fire rehab, as you mentioned.
    In Utah, we have funding sources that tie into the federal
    stabilization programs that help us to rehabilitate across
    ownership boundaries.
        In 2007, when we had Utah's largest wildfire, the Milford
    Flat Fire, we realized as different agencies that we didn't
    have the time or the resources to complete this on our own, as
    we had been doing for years. So we came together. We tore down
    all the burned fences and we used this WRI partnership to pool
    funds again in DNR. And DNR and WRI came together and put
    contracts out, got the seed purchased, got the seed mixed, had
    it tested and we came up with a single strategy and a single
    seed mix that could be put out across ownership boundaries.
    This was the only way that we were able to actually complete
    that restoration.
        The federal programs have historically focused on
    stabilization, and the State of Utah is unique in the fact that
    it supplements those seed mixes with more forbs and more shrubs
    so that we can complete a full restoration program. I think
    that's something that's unique to Utah and I think it's been
    very successful, and we've been able to tackle these large
    years where we have hundreds of thousands of acres of fires.
        Senator Lee. Thank you.
        Ms. Weldon, let's turn to you. You briefly mentioned the
    Good Neighbor Authority and mentioned that as an effective way
    to deal with restoration issues and to meet restoration goals
    because it allows the Forest Service to work with state
    agencies and to access and benefit from some of the state
    agency expertise. Are there other areas of federal land
    management that could benefit from this type of approach?
        Ms. Weldon. Yes, thanks for your question.
        So we're, with the Good Neighbor Authority, we're really
    starting with the idea that state forestry agencies and the
    national forest and private landowners have a lot of shared
    ownership in outcomes on both sides or all sides of the
    boundaries.
        The example around wildfire is also very important as it
    relates to reducing hazardous fuels, but we also have examples
    where we have states--I believe New Mexico was the first, and I
    believe Oregon--are also working with us for projects that are
    focusing on wildlife habitat improvement. But even beyond that,
    there's opportunities for us to look at things like shared
    management of recreation facilities and that.
        So we're in a mode of really exploring into that and want
    to make sure, as we get confident and good examples early on,
    that we're actively expanding that to other areas where we
    could, where we have shared interest in serving the public and
    through conservation.
        Senator Lee. That is good in a time when every penny
    counts.
        Ms. Weldon. Every penny counts, exactly.
        Senator Lee. That can be very helpful.
        Ms. Weldon. Every penny and every bit of skill and
    expertise counts.
        Senator Lee. Sure. Thank you.
        Now, Ms. Bail, BLM has not enjoyed the benefits of Good
    Neighbor Authority for quite as long as the Forest Service has,
    but is the BLM, so far, having similar success with it?
        Ms. Bail. Yes, sir. We are currently using the Good
    Neighbor Authority and are in the process of expanding it in
    four states. We either have agreements, a grant in development
    or in discussions. And similar to what Ms. Weldon talked about,
    you know, there's a lot of opportunity and utility and need for
    additional arrangements in this regard. And we look forward to
    continuing collaborative discussions with states where we have
    shared interests and needs to fully utilize this very important
    authority.
        Senator Lee. Do you have any idea what areas you think
    might be ripe for that kind of work?
        Ms. Bail. Leslie mentioned recreation, but certainly there
    are millions of acres of areas in the Great Basin and others
    that need treatment, you know, pinyon, juniper, treating
    invasive cheatgrass.
        There are many common interests to preventing the spread of
    that invasive annual grass as well as getting our rangelands
    more productive and more fire resilient. And so, continuing to
    work on those on-the-ground efforts, fostering those
    partnerships and collaborative efforts to look across fences,
    you know, neighbor-up and really prioritize, as you mentioned,
    where we have only limited fiscal resources. Let's do it smart,
    let's do it together, get the most effect for our investment.
    And these collaborative partnership efforts really help us do
    that.
        Senator Lee. Thank you.
        Mr. Moore, this morning we heard about some of the more
    successful collaborative initiatives. Not all, of course, have
    achieved equal results and some have even failed. In your
    experience, what distinguishes those that succeed and perform
    really well and those that do not?
        Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Certainly, I think it is having very committed individuals
    for the self-governing and self-formed groups that are out
    there. Really what it means though, is people who have
    individual interest, or their entities have interest, is to
    come to the table with an understanding that all of those
    interests have to be accepted and interacted on. What
    undermines them, the ones that I have seen that have failed
    over the years, are people that came in with interest and were
    uncompromising in the approach in which their interest and need
    was addressed. They had a solution that they wanted on the
    table for the issue they brought there and they were not
    willing to find other solutions that met the need of the whole.
    And being sure that we have the necessary mechanisms in place
    to protect those collaboratives as they've moved forward with
    solutions from being undermined unnecessarily by folks that are
    single-
    approach in what they do, I think, is very important.
        Certainly, all entities have certain rights relative to the
    processes we have, the public processes we have. But it's been
    my experience that the ones that have been most durable have
    been those where the interests have been broad, I mean,
    everybody is at the table. And when a challenge came to their
    outputs, whatever that might be, they stood together--state,
    federal, county, NGO, tribe, you name it, the private
    landowners--relative to the various administrative challenges,
    even up to and including court review, and they persisted
    because they stood together against those few that might be on
    the outside.
        At the same time, the use of federal processes--in
    particular, NEPA--to stall, delay or interfere with what has
    been well-thought-out collaboratives is an issue that has to be
    taken up by the collaborative, the way that Utah has done it
    with broad-
    ranging types of NEPA that are programmatic in nature that can
    get us through those hoops. I do think that we need to
    reexamine NEPA from the standpoint of can we give local
    managers more discretion to use their various decision-making
    authority to get these important things done?
        When it comes to fire rehab, we can cut through all the red
    tape in the world to get things done. When it comes to fire
    prevention, we don't seem to be able to get through the red
    tape. When it comes to management for conservation, then we get
    stalled out. So why can't we use those same mechanisms to get
    the work done to keep a fire from occurring that it might take
    to restore from that fire?
        Senator Lee. Right.
        I have a friend who is fond of saying that when you are
    holding a hammer, and only a hammer, everything looks like a
    nail. It sounds like you are saying if people who are willing
    to recognize that there are tools other than hammers that one
    can use, one is willing to keep an open mind and if you can
    keep those people involved in the process, you can find more
    collaborative solutions.
        Mr. Moore. Agreed.
        Senator Lee. Mr. Thompson, given the onerous litigation
    delays that we hear about with other restoration projects,
    including some collaborative restoration projects, one of the
    more impressive and unusual accomplishments of WRI is that it
    has dealt with very little litigation. How did you do this? How
    did you avoid it?
        Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Senator Lee.
        I think, you know, the way we deal with this in Utah is we
    bring folks together at the beginning. We build large
    collaboratives on the ground, at the ground level. We build
    these collaboratives before we start writing the NEPA. We
    include all of the different stakeholders as we move through
    the NEPA process. There's not always agreement. There's not
    always unanimous consent on the things that we're trying to do,
    but just the fact that we include those folks is extremely
    important.
        And then we write simplified NEPA documents and I think
    that's an art that's been lost in the federal agencies. NEPA
    documents have gotten so large and so unwieldy that they are
    difficult when it comes to the challenges that come. And we
    write very simple, very short documents that still cover all of
    the issues that are important. And, to date, I think we've had
    one challenge, and we were successful when that was litigated.
        Senator Lee. Is there anything we can do, anything that can
    be done with NEPA to make collaborative projects, like WRI,
    move forward more smoothly?
        Mr. Thompson. Certainly in the beginning of the initiative
    we had the categorical exclusions that allowed us to do 1,000-
    acre and less projects on federal lands when it came to issues
    that were fuels- and fire-related. Those categorical exclusions
    have since gone away. Those were heavily utilized by the
    watershed initiative and the return of those type of
    categorical exclusions would obviously be helpful.
        Senator Lee. When were those put in? When did they go away?
        Mr. Thompson. I believe they came in during the Bush
    Administration. And I think they were litigated and I'm not
    sure, timing-wise, when they went away, but it's been about a
    decade since we've had use of those.
        Senator Lee. How were they put in in the first place?
        Mr. Thompson. I believe they were part of the Bush
    Administration's Healthy Forest Initiative.
        Senator Lee. Okay, so it was in a regulatory rather than a
    statutory change that brought that up.
        Mr. Thompson. I believe so, yes.
        Senator Lee. Okay, thank you.
        Senator Daines.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    holding this important hearing.
        Ms. Weldon, it is good to see you here again today. Thank
    you for testifying.
        Anytime we have discussions about forest management I wish
    we could take folks here in Washington, DC, out to Montana and
    spend time around a table listening to our conservation groups.
    The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation most recently--two weeks
    ago--was talking about the fact that we can no longer get in
    and do responsible forest management projects. Of course,
    timber is a renewable resource and it just continues to grow
    and grow and grow--we are not thinning. The habitat now is
    getting to be a point where it is not suitable for elk.
        Of course, when Lewis and Clark came out to Montana the elk
    were out in the plains, as were the grizzly bears, but with man
    coming out West, we have moved those animals up in the
    mountains and they have adapted. But when you move them to the
    mountains they have to have grass to eat. When you have the
    thick forest, you do not get the sun down, get the grass sunk
    through the bottom because of the canopies, you do not have
    grass and you do not have elk anymore.
        So it is a serious issue. Never mind the issue of loss of
    our jobs from 30 active sawmills when I was a kid growing up in
    Montana down to eight. We see counties in Montana that have 90
    plus percent of their lands that are controlled by the Federal
    Government, and they pay no taxes. Consequently, we have
    counties that are just dying on a vine, literally, back home
    because we have lost the revenue that used to come off our
    national forests for the jobs, revenue to support our
    infrastructure.
        We have county commissioners now, literally, having to jump
    on snow plows in the wintertime and plow the road to get the
    school buses through because we cannot afford to hire men and
    women to run the graters.
        It is truly a sad state and unfortunately, in my home State
    of Montana, our forests used to have loggers in there
    responsibly managing our forests. Now our forests are crawling
    with lawyers. Virtually every timber project, almost every one
    of them, gets litigated by extreme environmental groups after
    we have outstanding collaborative efforts. You bring everybody
    together--conservation groups, timber industry--and then we get
    litigated and the projects, oftentimes, are halted.
        I strongly support efforts to increase collaborative forest
    management. As you know very well, fire risk and other forest
    health challenges have no regard for these boundaries. I joined
    Senator Amy Klobuchar in sponsoring legislation to encourage
    partnerships between the Forest Service and state foresters to
    carry out cross-boundary restoration projects, including on
    federal lands. Our bill codifies and expands existing
    initiatives and encourages the use of Good Neighbor Authority
    to achieve better forest management. At another hearing just
    last week, Chief Tidwell expressed agreement with these goals.
    I look forward to further discussing this bill with you and
    your colleagues at the Forest Service.
        I have a few questions here, and they will all be for Ms.
    Weldon today. I was struck just a few weeks ago when I brought
    Senator Pat Roberts, Chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition and
    Forestry Committee, to hear some of these firsthand stories
    from folks on the ground up in Columbia Falls, Montana, up in
    the Northwest part of our state. We had a couple folks
    representing the timber industry there. They are all running a
    single shift, single shift. We had five or six members of the
    press there, and sometimes the story will get construed that
    suggests that the reason we are running single shift is because
    the demand for lumber is not there.
        Our timber folks reminded us that the demand has not been
    better. The constraint is logs. We would run additional shifts
    in our operations if we could get logs--we cannot get enough
    logs. The tragedy, we are having these meetings--we are staring
    at millions of acres of national forest, in some cases, dead
    and dying timber because of beetle kill--and we cannot get in
    there and harvest and responsibly manage our forests. We are
    shipping logs in from Canada. We are shipping logs in from
    hundreds of miles away from neighboring states because we
    cannot get logs and we are surrounded by them there in Montana.
        A question, Ms. Weldon. In your testimony, you highlight
    efforts by the State of Montana to accelerate forest management
    in our national forests, yet I am hearing concerns that Good
    Neighbor Authority is not working as effectively in Montana as
    it should because there are not enough NEPA-ready projects,
    even with the Farm bill's expedited authorities at your
    disposal. Can you discuss the barriers the Forest Service faces
    to completing NEPA on these common-sense projects more quickly?
        Ms. Weldon. Great, thank you very much.
        And I just want to echo your sentiment, you know, my
    experiences in Montana, earlier, really showed the value and
    importance of folks coming together across the landscape and
    really making some great progress.
        So having NEPA-ready projects is a challenge and struggle.
    Part of that comes from the fact that, as you mentioned, there
    is quite a bit of litigation with our projects that we do get
    decisions on. And that has the effect of taking the workforce,
    the experts that would be working on that next NEPA project,
    and having them, you know, preparing for the litigation which
    takes quite a bit of time and energy.
        So what we're working to do is still strengthen and build
    on collaboration for the results, but the region there has, in
    working with the states, looked at ways to increase our
    effectiveness in delivering NEPA. They have several pilots
    they're working on that have us with NEPA strike teams who are
    concentrating their efforts to increase the amount of decisions
    that we can get made and do it in a way that allows that more
    certainty as far as the types of projects that will come out.
        So that's an area that we fully acknowledged. I've had some
    good conversations with the states and other partners on our
    need, as Tyler was saying, for us to really relook at how we
    apply our categorical exclusions, how we look at putting larger
    areas within our analysis so that we can get decisions on
    larger landscapes and then continue to make sure we're
    implementing every efficiency we can in delivering the NEPA
    process to get more work done.
        Senator Daines. Thank you and beyond addressing what, I
    believe, is excessive process and as well as extremely
    excessive litigation, are there reforms to Good Neighbor
    Authority or that build on Good Neighbor Authority that would
    help the Forest Service and their state partners carry out
    forest restoration projects faster?
        Ms. Weldon. One big area of feedback we've been hearing,
    pretty much across the whole country, is around the
    restrictions that are in Good Neighbor Authority associated
    with the ability to share investments and work on road
    construction, reconstruction and maintenance that's associated
    with delivering the work. So that's one area that, as we look
    at a new Farm bill, we would like to address.
        Senator Daines. And my last question, Mr. Chairman, could I
    ask another question? I know I am out of time here.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you, I have one more question for Ms.
    Weldon.
        State foresters are required to develop State Forest Action
    Plans. Is the Forest Service consulting those plans in
    determining where to target fuels and forestry funding and has
    the agency leadership provided direction in that regard?
        Ms. Weldon. I'm happy to report that our regional forester,
    Leon Martin, and the state forester in Montana have, over the
    last couple of years, really increased their efforts to look at
    the best places to make shared investments as it relates to
    reducing hazardous fuels and changing fire behavior.
        The state forest action plans are a basis for that. They're
    also being considered in the places that we are revising or
    updating our forest plans. And it's a requirement within our
    2012 planning rule to ensure that the information available,
    the strategic prioritization that's occurred with state forest
    action plans and others, other type, are considered. So that is
    happening in Montana.
        Senator Daines. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Lee. Are there any examples any of you can point to
    of successful instances of interstate collaboration? The
    collaboration we are discussing here is important. Can you
    think of any good examples of where this has worked well across
    state lines?
        Mr. Moore.
        Mr. Moore. Senator Lee, certainly there are a number of
    examples of interstate collaboration. I do believe the Sage
    Grouse Initiative that is occupying that large sagebrush-steppe
    habitats that encompass 11 states where the greater sage-grouse
    lives, is a very good example of our attempts at interstate
    collaboration.
        Each state undertook to utilize the same science-based
    conservation objectives in designing unique state plans to
    address that large landscape across those various states. It
    was science-based, but then each state, working with the
    federal, private and state land managers there, came up with
    their own unique methods for dealing with what they felt were
    important to that state, relative to those landscapes, using
    that common science that was out there.
        That common science came from a number of teams that were
    interdisciplinary and multi-state, but ultimately the process
    of NEPA, itself, for getting those plans approved was worked
    forward at the states' request to get this done, but failed as
    a collaborative at the end, in my estimation because once those
    state plans went forward, there was review in this town by some
    that modified those state plans for some states that created
    litigating and other issues associated with implementation
    we're still dealing with today. But it is an example of where
    my Governor put a task force together in the state to design
    across the board with industry and private lands, NGO's, a
    state plan that was honest to the science that did a great job
    of that--I co-chaired that effort for the Governor. And then it
    got spoiled at the end through the federal NEPA process and the
    fact that it was done actually well locally, but it got spoiled
    at the end from, frankly, a DC perspective, I'll be honest with
    you, and we're still trying to sort that out. And
    unfortunately, our local land managers on the federal side are
    somewhat constrained by those.
        Senator Lee. Let me ask you, Ms. Weldon and Ms. Bail, what
    are some things we could do to streamline the NEPA process to
    make it not so burdensome?
        Ms. Weldon. I'll start.
        One thing that we can do is, as I mentioned before, make
    sure that we're making use of the categorical exclusions that
    we do have. We have quite a suite. Some of them came through
    with the Good Neighbor Authority and the Farm bill authorities
    for forestry.
        I think there's a huge opportunity for us to look
    strategically in the context of projects that fit those goals;
    for example, for projects up to 3,000 acres, to reduce fuels,
    to do active forest management in places that there's agreement
    from a priority standpoint.
        The other thing is for us to take a hard look at how we
    need to make sure we can get to a point where NEPA is doing
    what it needs to do from a legal standpoint and get away from,
    perhaps, many requirements that have built up over the years in
    a different era that may not be needed now.
        So we're taking an active look at how to put our field
    folks, our practitioners and our decision-makers, in a place to
    really look at what is the, how do we meet that standard in
    such a way that allows us to do it more quickly, more
    efficiently and frankly, at a larger scale, as we're saying
    before to get more work, decisions for work to get done and
    focus on the implementation.
        Senator Lee. Thank you.
        Ms. Bail.
        Ms. Bail. In addition to what Ms. Weldon discussed, the
    Secretary has issued a memorandum that has started a process
    within the BLM for us to take a hard look at all of our
    processes, the land use planning process, the NEPA process, as
    well as how we comply with laws such as the Endangered Species
    Act, Clean Water Act, et cetera.
        How can we work better among federal agencies, how can we
    improve our business practices and processes, and how do we do
    what we need to do in a transparent way and more effective way
    and more cost-effective way?
        So we're looking at everything from, you know, protest
    processes. We're looking at our internal policies. We're
    looking at are there regulatory things that we can do?
        And then also would look forward to when we have our report
    that we are going to deliver to the Secretary on September
    27th, having a conversation after that about how we can work
    together with this Committee or others who might be interested
    in moving forward on additional opportunities.
        So we are in the process and we are getting a lot of great
    minds in the room and talking with, you know, CEQ and other
    very important folks to get their insights as well as other
    agencies so that--and we're very much focused on making the
    process better. We look forward to sharing what we find out
    here in the next few months.
        Senator Lee. Thank you.
        Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I
    appreciate it.
        And apologies for the delay. I was in another committee
    meeting that was going on at the same time, but this issue is
    just as important to me, so I wanted to be here. And thank you
    for coming today. I know we changed the time of the hearing as
    well.
        I am from the great State of Nevada. Over 80 percent of the
    land is owned as public land. Watershed protection is so
    important for Nevada, and our federal partners are key, as you
    well know.
        Let me start off with Ms. Bail, with the BLM, because they
    are key partners for us in the State of Nevada. You mentioned
    that the BLM has partnered with the Nevada Departments of
    Wildlife and Conservation and Natural Resources, the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service, and Newmont Mining Corporation on a
    sagebrush ecosystem conservation program for managing over 1.5
    million acres of habitat. Can you elaborate on this partnership
    and why it has been so successful?
        Ms. Bail. Thank you, Senator.
        And one thing that I believe is key to the success is that
    it was a willing landowner, voluntary effort, common interests
    and we're using the state conservation credit system, you know,
    so this is the state looking to facilitate conservation,
    financial incentives for doing so and meet conservation
    purposes.
        So those efforts that are built, you know, from the ground
    up that build on common interests that are cross boundary and
    collaborative--all those are very much part of that success.
    And the fact that it is covering more than 1.5 million acres, I
    mean, there's a lot of ground that can be covered there. And
    we're very much looking forward to continuing to fulfill all of
    the opportunity that that provides.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I mentioned that because I
    agree with you. I think particularly in Nevada, where you have
    from the ground up all the stakeholders coming together who may
    have differing opinions initially, but when they come together
    they try to find common ground. That should be respected.
        I am hoping that our federal partners, who are part of that
    conversation, and the leaders here are listening and respecting
    that and letting the states and those people that are on the
    ground living there know what's happening, and listening to
    what their recommendations are.
        That's true in Nevada for sage grouse because I know we've
    done the same thing. The Governor has brought together key
    stakeholders trying to address this issue. We have all found
    common ground, and we'd hope that would be respected. So I
    appreciate those comments.
        Talk to me about--and I am going to open this up to Ms.
    Weldon as well--wildfires. We have seen hot spots in Northern
    Nevada, particularly Northern California, and many parts of the
    West. This is going to be a difficult year for us, particularly
    because of cheatgrass. Can you talk a little bit about your
    thoughts on how we address that, particularly in an environment
    where we are cutting funding to the very resources that we are
    going to need, in both your agencies, to address these
    wildfires?
        Ms. Bail. That's where collaboration and partnerships
    become even more crucial. How can we work together, looking
    across fence lines, across boundaries and be strategic? There
    are some areas that are already heavily infested with
    cheatgrass. Do we focus there or do we focus on protecting
    those areas that are still good habitats, still providing good
    livestock forage and, of course, protecting communities'
    economic livelihoods?
        So having those conversations at the ground level and
    working together to determine where the best use of what funds
    we do have can be accomplished, you know, that's very
    important.
        And then it takes a multiplicity of things. It's continuing
    research on how do we treat cheatgrass? You know, there are new
    biocides. How can we create fuel breaks along roads to stop
    fires and give the firefighters a better chance? How can we use
    targeted grazing along roads to natural, you know, through
    grazing, create fuel breaks and also provide an opportunity for
    willing permittees to have another opportunity for forage?
    Working with rural fire protection associations, you know, our,
    the ranchers on the ground that are the first responders that
    can get to a fire more quickly than the federal resources can.
        So it's using all of those tools--having the relationships,
    having the conversation, looking across boundaries--those are
    going to be keys for success because we've got a big problem
    out there, millions and millions of acres and we'll keep
    chipping away at it.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        Ms. Weldon, do you want to add anything?
        Ms. Weldon. I think Ms. Bail said it very well.
        Those efforts to make sure that we're expanding our ability
    to share skills, expertise, in front of this problem, you know,
    which is really critical on a number of fronts, especially with
    our ability to ensure that we can continue with the grazing
    permittees and their uses as well as protecting and concerning
    sage grouse habitat. So, I think Kristin covered it very well.
        Another thing to mention is around this, the great
    collaboration that's occurring with wildfire through the
    National Cohesive Wildfire Strategy. And that is really calling
    on prioritizing to the very local level, identifying important
    resources and looking at maximizing the impact of what everyone
    can contribute to achieve outcomes for the landscape, but more
    importantly for good suppression efforts and being able to
    protect community and community values.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Lee. Thank you.
        Mr. Thompson, what is the biggest obstacle to preventing or
    that prevents your expansion, that prevents you from doing more
    from your effort, that is stopping your effort from expanding
    its reach?
        Mr. Thompson. Certainly funding is always an obstacle for
    us. We have, on average, about $30 million of requests each
    year. We can usually come up with about $15 or $18 million of
    that each year. So we have enough work on the ground. We have
    enough NEPA on the shelf and folks that are ready to implement
    shovel-ready projects. We just need the funding. We need more
    funding to help us get that in place.
        And then, the areas that we are struggling with NEPA and,
    you know, any resources that we can develop or that we can
    apply to the federal agencies to help them hire employees or
    find outside contractors or whatever needs to be done to help
    get more of that NEPA on the shelf and do it at a large scale
    and provide areas for us to move into where we can complete
    restoration year after year after year. Those are the real
    bottlenecks that we're struggling with.
        Senator Lee. When you look at an area that has been
    affected by a fire 20 years down the road, one that has had a
    rehabilitation effort, can you tell an immediate difference
    between those that have received rehabilitation and those that
    have not?
        Mr. Thompson. Absolutely. In this day and age where we have
    the destructive wildfires and we have species that have come
    from across the world and are invading these different wildfire
    areas, they do not set themselves on the trajectory that they
    have in the past. And so, when we come in and do this
    restoration work, it actually sets it onto a trajectory that
    we'd like to see it set on and that actually makes those areas
    more resilient and more resistant when wildfires come in.
        We've seen in Utah where we've had effective wildfire
    rehabilitation, fires starting in those areas or moving into
    those areas and slowing down, the flame lengths are reduced.
    They've gotten to the point where active firefighter resources
    can be moved in and fight those fires. And we've also seen that
    if those areas do burn, that they come back on their own, that
    they don't need as much active restoration following a
    subsequent wildfire event.
        Senator Lee. So it's a dramatic acceleration of the
    improvement of the recovery.
        Mr. Thompson. Absolutely.
        Senator Lee. Okay. Thank you.
        I have no further questions.
        Senator Cortez Masto, do you have anything else?
        Senator Cortez Masto. Just a quick follow-up.
        I am curious, Mr. Moore and Mr. Thompson, as representing
    your states, what else can we be doing? What else should we be
    doing at the federal level to address your concerns and work
    with you at the state and local levels?
        Mr. Thompson. You know, the other issue that we deal with
    in Utah is that we need more involvement from the private
    landowners. So certainly anything we can do to reauthorize the
    Farm bill to give us more flexibility with it.
        One of the issues that we run into quite a bit is the
    income levels of a lot of our landowners--they're not eligible
    for Farm bill funding and there's still a lot of good patchwork
    private lands that still need restoration. We have to skip over
    those or we have to find state funding to put onto those
    private lands because they've hit either the income level or
    they've hit the Farm bill, I think it's a $400,000 maximum over
    the life of the Farm bill.
        We run into that maximum a lot with private landowners too
    where, you know, we're doing such large amounts of work and
    such big projects that those are quickly reached and we have
    to, kind of, skip over those landowners until the next Farm
    bill is authorized.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
        Mr. Moore, anything to add?
        Mr. Moore. Thank you, Senator.
        Certainly, I think that providing the resources necessary
    to get more private landowners involved in these multi-
    landowner landscapes that include the state lands, the private
    lands and the federal lands. Certainly those boundaries don't,
    are meaningless, to the resources we manage out there, to a
    large degree. And those incentives, each state is unique in
    that.
        I am jealous of the State of Utah for the amount of
    legislative resources they get from their legislature. At the
    same time, we get a small amount but it needs to be augmented.
    We need to have the ability for resources to move transparently
    across boundaries and in some cases, state boundaries.
        Idaho needs to maybe move across with Nevada or Utah in
    those areas where we have common landscapes that abut each
    other without even thinking about it. Those need to be
    preplanned and pre-implemented.
        And certainly there are unique aspects, but we know how to
    do that when we fight a fire. Again, I go back to that. We
    haven't quite figured out how to do that as effectively when
    we're trying to prevent fires or manage the resources within
    each of those jurisdictions or land ownerships. I know we can
    do it. I've seen it work.
        So it's just a matter of figuring out how to get that
    transparently done and incorporate those private landowners
    into the effectives because the landscapes they live on--the
    landscape, especially in our sagebrush-steppe habitats, they
    live on and they function in are their home regardless of the
    ownership. They have an important component with those wet
    areas down there for the biological resources I have
    responsibility for. But they depend on the uplands, both state
    and federal lands. And so, we've got to figure out how to
    combine all those together. I've got ranchers that move across
    state boundaries quite readily. They own property in all three
    states so they know how to manage across those and we need to
    incorporate them in.
        So that is one of the issues, I think, that collaboratives
    need to recognize and we need to go through. We have great
    collaboration among the state agencies across state boundaries.
    We've figured out how to maintain each entity's unique
    management and state law responsibilities while achieving the
    common goal of the management of those resources for all of the
    people out there. We need to figure out how to do that with the
    federal lands as well.
        Senator Cortez Masto. I agree. Thank you.
        Thank you for your comments, I appreciate it.
        Senator Lee. I do have a couple of other questions I would
    like to get into if that's okay.
        Ms. Weldon, it occurs to me that Good Neighbor Authority
    does not extend to road repair or reconditioning of roads,
    things like that. Could this possibly be a good opportunity to
    expand Good Neighbor Authority?
        Ms. Weldon. Yes, we have gotten quite a bit of feedback in
    our first few years of implementing Good Neighbor Authority
    from the states that said this is another area that, if there
    were some adjustments made to relax the restrictions around
    road construction, rather road reconstruction and maintenance,
    that it would allow the more certain accomplishment of projects
    and expand the number of opportunities for that.
        Senator Lee. Okay, thank you.
        And then, Mr. Thompson, what can you tell me about your
    seed bank? What's unique about the Utah seed bank?
        Mr. Thompson. So, Utah is one of the only states in the
    West, I believe, that has its own seed warehouse. Our seed
    warehouse was built with funds from both the Forest Service and
    the BLM. It's expanded to a capacity of about 1.5 million
    pounds.
        And one of the unique things in Utah is that the BLM has
    actually signed an agreement with Utah that makes our seed
    warehouse part of the BLM's network. And so, BLM employees can
    utilize our seed warehouse as if it were their own. And what
    that does is that it really allows us to purchase seed
    together. It allows us to go out earlier because we're
    utilizing that state procurement system that's much more
    efficient than the federal system.
        We test the seed. We mix it together with the seed that
    they've purchased and the seed that we've purchased. It makes
    the whole operation much more efficient and has been a key part
    of Utah's success.
        Senator Lee. And you use that substantially, I would
    imagine, in your rehabilitation efforts?
        Mr. Thompson. Absolutely. And in our regular efforts too.
    We put a lot of seed out just through our regular watershed
    restoration efforts as well.
        Senator Lee. Okay, great.
        Senator Cortez Masto, anything else?
        Any other member of the Committee?
        If not, I want to thank all of our witnesses, again, for
    being here today. Thank you for your testimony. It has been
    very helpful.
        Members will be free to submit questions for the record.
    The hearing record will be remaining open for another two
    weeks.
        The hearing stands adjourned. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 11:09 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                    [all]