[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]