[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                      A REVIEW OF TITLE VIII: FORESTRY 
                          STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY

                                 OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 8, 2023

                               __________

                            Serial No. 118-2
                            
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                            


          Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
                         agriculture.house.gov

                               __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
52-205 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     

                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

                 GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             DAVID SCOTT, Georgia, Ranking 
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia, Vice          Minority Member
Chairman                             JIM COSTA, California
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
DOUG LaMALFA, California             ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi             SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio
DON BACON, Nebraska                  SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
MIKE BOST, Illinois                  ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota          YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana              ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
TRACEY MANN, Kansas                  MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ, 
RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa                 Washington
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois             DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota              ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee              GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
MARCUS J. MOLINARO, New York         JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
MONICA De La CRUZ, Texas             GREG CASAR, Texas
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
JOHN S. DUARTE, California           SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
ZACHARY NUNN, Iowa                   ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
MARK ALFORD, Missouri                DARREN SOTO, Florida
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin         SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon
MAX L. MILLER, Ohio

                                 ______

                     Parish Braden, Staff Director

                 Anne Simmons, Minority Staff Director

                                 ______

                        Subcommittee on Forestry

                   DOUG LaMALFA, California, Chairman

TRENT KELLY, Mississippi             ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon, Ranking 
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 Minority Member
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon          MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ, 
                                     Washington
                                     GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico

                                  (ii)
                             
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
LaMalfa, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from California, 
  opening statement..............................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
Salinas, Hon. Andrea, a Representative in Congress from Oregon, 
  opening statement..............................................     3
Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress from 
  Pennsylvania, opening statement................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     2

                               Witnesses

Shultzabarger, Ellen, State Forester and Director, Pennsylvania 
  Bureau of Forestry, Department of Conservation & Natural 
  Resources; Treasurer, National Association of State Foresters, 
  Harrisburg, PA.................................................     8
    Prepared statement...........................................     9
Brandt, Hon. R. Skipper ``Skip'', Commissioner, Idaho County, ID; 
  Representative, Western Interstate Region Board of Directors, 
  National Association of Counties, Grangeville, ID..............    15
    Prepared statement...........................................    17
Imbergamo, William ``Bill'', Executive Director, Federal Forest 
  Resource Coalition, Washington, D.C............................    21
    Prepared statement...........................................    23
Holmes, Patrick, Senior Policy Advisor, American Forests, Helena, 
  MT.............................................................    26
    Prepared statement...........................................    28

                           Submitted Material

Waldorf, Jack, Executive Director, Western Governors' 
  Association, submitted letter..................................    49

 
       A REVIEW OF TITLE VIII: FORESTRY STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
                                  Subcommittee on Forestry,
                                  Committee on Agriculture,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in 
Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doug 
LaMalfa [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Members present: LaMalfa, Kelly, Moore, Chavez-DeRemer, 
Thompson (ex officio), Salinas, Perez, and Vasquez.
    Staff present: Adele Borne, John Busovsky, Patricia 
Straughn, Erin Wilson, John Konya, Paul Babbitt, Kate Fink, and 
Dana Sandman.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LaMALFA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                    CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA

    The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. Welcome, 
and thank you all for joining today's hearing, which is 
entitled, A Review of Title VIII: Forestry Stakeholder 
Perspectives. After brief opening remarks, Members will receive 
testimony from our witnesses today, and then the hearing will 
be open to questions.
    First, I would like to recognize our Chairman of our whole 
Committee, Mr. G.T. Thompson, for any opening statement that he 
may have.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                   CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA

    Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you, Chairman LaMalfa and Ranking 
Member Salinas. I appreciate today's hearing and the 
opportunity to hear from this great panel of witnesses. Today's 
hearing marks the first event of the newly formed Forestry 
Subcommittee. With the great challenges we have in the National 
Forest System and forested regions of the country, it is my 
hope that this Subcommittee can shine a brighter spotlight on 
the needs of the forest sector, especially as we begin the farm 
bill process.
    Since joining the House Committee on Agriculture two farm 
bills ago, I have been proud of this Subcommittee and the full 
Committee's forestry achievements, specifically in supporting 
the Forest Service's non-Federal forest managers, partnership 
agreements, forest research, and new markets for forest 
products. Still, forested regions have many significant 
challenges that need to be addressed.
    For decades, we have witnessed timber harvest decline on 
National Forest lands, which undermines forest health, rural 
jobs, and the local economy and revenue to counties and local 
public schools. We are also facing a nationwide forest health 
crisis and a wildfire crisis in the West. In my district, we 
continue to have great challenges with invasive insects and 
plants, and diseases that further undermine forest health. In 
the West, not only are they dealing with serious forest health 
issues like invasives, but wildfires remain the number one 
issue, devastating communities and destroying homes, property, 
and millions of acres of forest land.
    I appreciate--although it was a very solemn experience, 
just a matter of--within the past month of being in Paradise, 
California, with our Chairman, a community that he represents 
that was devastated just a couple of years ago with the loss of 
95 lives. And so just an outcome, the most extreme outcome of 
poor forest health and a lack of robust forest management 
practices.
    By ramping up forest management, there are very real 
challenges that we can and must aggressively confront. Three 
weeks ago, this Committee held a farm bill listening session in 
Tulare, California, and I was a part of that and was proud to 
join the Chairman in his district and meet with the regional 
Forest Service, as well as the local forestry and forest 
products industry.
    That opportunity, that visit, the visit to Paradise was an 
eye-opening experience to see that firsthand and a reminder of 
what can happen when we don't do enough to manage our most at-
risk forest lands. Unfortunately, this is just one fire, and we 
have seen some of the most difficult fire seasons in recent 
years. We must get more aggressive with how we treat 
landscapes, leverage partnerships, and actively reduce the 
threat of wildfire. And I am hopeful that, as we undertake the 
writing of the next farm bill, that we can build on the gains 
that we made in 2014, 2018 laws and consider new ways to help 
the Forest Service better manage, increase partnerships, and do 
the restoration work that is badly needed on the tens of 
millions of acres identified by the agency.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and 
hearing what recommendations that you have for the upcoming 
farm bill.
    I would also like to personally extend a special welcome to 
Director Shultzabarger for being here today from Pennsylvania.
    And with that, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member, and 
I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress 
                           from Pennsylvania
    Thank you, Chairman LaMalfa and Ranking Member Salinas. I 
appreciate today's hearing and the opportunity to hear from this great 
panel of witnesses.
    Today's hearing marks the first event of the newly formed Forestry 
Subcommittee. With the great challenges we have in the National Forest 
System and forested regions of the country, it's my hope this 
Subcommittee can shine a brighter spotlight on the needs of the forest 
sector, especially as we begin the farm bill process.
    Since joining the House Committee on Agriculture two farm bills 
ago, I have been proud of this Subcommittee and the full Committee's 
forestry achievements, specifically in supporting the Forest Service, 
non-Federal forest managers, partnership agreements, forest research, 
and new markets for forest products.
    Still, forested regions have many significant challenges that need 
to be addressed. For decades, we have witnessed timber harvest decline 
on National Forest lands which undermines forest health, rural jobs and 
the local economy, and revenue to counties and local public schools.
    We are also facing a nationwide forest health crisis and a wildfire 
crisis in the West.
    In my district, we continue to have great challenges with invasive 
insects and plants, and diseases that further undermine forest health.
    In the West, not only are they dealing with serious forest health 
issues like invasives, but wildfires remain the number one issue, 
devastating communities and destroying homes, property, and millions of 
acres of forest land.
    By ramping up forest management, these are very real challenges 
that we can--and must--aggressively confront.
    Three weeks ago, this Committee held a farm bill listening session 
in Tulare, California. During this trip, I was proud to join Chairman 
LaMalfa in his district to meet with the regional Forest Service, as 
well as the local forestry and forest products industry.
    We also toured Paradise, California--which is where the Camp Fire 
took place in 2018. This devastating wildfire is the most destructive 
California wildfire on record, it burned the entire town, and took the 
lives of 85 civilians.
    It was an eye-opening experience to see that firsthand and a 
reminder of what can happen when we don't do enough to manage our most 
at-risk forestlands.
    Unfortunately, this is just one fire; and we've seen some of the 
most difficult fire seasons in recent years. We must get more 
aggressive with how we treat landscapes, leverage partnerships, and 
actively reduce the threat of wildfire.
    I am hopeful that as we undertake the writing of the next farm bill 
that we can build on the gains we have made in the 2014 and 2018 laws 
and consider new ways to help the Forest Service better manage, 
increase partnerships, and do the restoration work that is badly needed 
on the tens of millions of acres identified by the agency.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and hearing what 
recommendations you have for the upcoming farm bill. I'd also like to 
extend a special welcome to Director Shultzabarger for being here today 
from Pennsylvania.
    With that, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member and yield back.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Thompson. And it has 
certainly been a pleasure to be able to first be given the 
responsibility of chairing this Subcommittee and to work with 
you all these years, including this new session as we try and 
get a fast start, and indeed we are on the farm bill and the 
issues with our forests in this country. So thank you so much, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Now, I would like to also recognize our distinguished 
Ranking Member, the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Salinas, for 
her opening remarks.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANDREA SALINAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                      CONGRESS FROM OREGON

    Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning. I 
am very pleased to join this Subcommittee and thank my 
colleagues on this Subcommittee. I thank the Chairman, Mr. 
LaMalfa, and I am very honored to be serving as the Ranking 
Member, and I look forward to working with the gentleman from 
California.
    I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today. I 
know it takes a good amount of work to pull together testimony, 
and I appreciate all of you sharing your perspectives and 
really providing some insight as we move forward on the 2023 
Farm Bill.
    Healthy forests are critical to our nation, both 
environmentally, ecologically, and economically. And my home 
State of Oregon, as you all know, shows how interconnected and 
intertwined these issues are. Farm bill programs and 
authorities play an important role in both private forestry and 
management of our National Forest System lands. And today's 
hearing is an important first step and an important first 
opportunity to hear from our stakeholders on how those current 
authorities and programs are actually used and implemented by 
land managers and forest product users to responsibly build 
rural prosperity and improve forest health. And I look forward 
to hearing today from the witnesses on those opportunities for 
improvement and challenges with current implementation efforts.
    And I want to again thank Chairman LaMalfa for arranging 
this hearing, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Salinas. I look 
forward to our work together as with our neighboring states 
have faced extreme challenges with forestry and wildfire, et 
cetera, so we will find a lot of common ground on that, I am 
sure.
    So, for my statement, I just want to say thank you again 
for being here and for this very first committee of the new 
Congress, for the Subcommittee on Forestry. We will focus on 
Title VIII of the 2018 Farm Bill, and we will receive testimony 
from our panel of industry partners for their feedback. We hope 
to hear what is working, what isn't, and what recommendations 
our panel has for improvements for the next farm bill due this 
fall.
    Across the West, of course, we continue to face a wildfire 
forest health crisis. As we begin turning our attention to the 
next farm bill and discussions on this title, this Committee 
and Congress as a whole need to understand that this is a true 
crisis. The pace and scale of active management on these 
forests and landscapes must be drastically increased, and this 
must happen right now. We must undertake the paradigm shift 
that the U.S. Forest Service has been calling for and 
dramatically increase the management to restore forest health, 
protect rural residents, air quality, water quality, and reduce 
the threat of catastrophic wildfire.
    As you know, our Agriculture Committee oversees USDA. The 
U.S. Forest Service is a component within the USDA, therefore, 
within our purview. Forest Service has approximately 193 
million acres in its charge, and so that is the nexus that we 
have here today in this Committee and in our obligations as the 
Agriculture Committee.
    In the past 5 years alone, we have seen some of the most 
destructive wildfires on record, especially in California in my 
own district. We have seen several of these fires, the 2018 
Camp Fire, as our Chairman mentioned, in Paradise and 
surrounding areas on the ridge in northeast Butte County; the 
2020 North Complex Fire, which was several fires in eastern 
Butte County and stretching into others; the million-acre--say 
this to yourself for a minute--the million-acre Dixie Fire in 
2021 devastated most of Greenville and another town known as 
Canyon Dam, and touched and threatened many others. And these 
are just a handful of the many fires. You can't name them all.
    Since 2000, we have averaged more than 70,000 wildfires per 
year and an average of 7 million acres burned annually. This 
acreage is more than double the average number during the 
1990s. Since 2018, we have had four fire seasons that have 
exceeded 7 million acres, including 2020 when 10.1 million 
acres burned. We don't really even have a fire season anymore, 
as such as it is a year-round fire year. And this has effects 
not just in the West. We saw during the Dixie Fire that the 
smoke plume was so massive that it lifted and went across the 
entire country and affected air quality on East Coast cities 
where there was advisories for people not to go out and engage 
in athletic activity.
    So what does this mean? The Forest Service must get more 
aggressive in its pace and scale of forest land treatment and 
must increase the partnerships with whether it is the private-
sector, local government, local Tribes, and other third parties 
that can cut, harvest, thin more trees that would otherwise 
only contribute to declining forest health in our overpopulated 
forests and, of course, the threat of the outbreak of new 
wildfires. As told to me by members fighting those fires, 
especially in 2021 and during the million-acre Dixie Fire, 
those firefighters on the ground have never seen the conditions 
like they have with the acute level of dryness. The dryness 
factor was such that it was overwhelming what they had to deal 
with.
    Over the past 30 years, we have fallen way behind with our 
forest health and management goals, as well as timber harvest 
needed to promote that health. We only harvest about \1/3\ of 
the timber we did at the peak on Forest Service lands and 
routinely fall short of our allowable sale quality across the 
National Forest System. Indeed, the number of board-feet 
growing in the forest each year massively outstrips the amount 
that is been harvested, falling farther and farther behind on 
inventory.
    The Forest Service is carrying out its proposed 10 year 
strategy to confront the wildfire crisis. Through this plan, 
the Forest Service has identified some 20 million acres of 
Federal land and another 30 million acres of adjacent non-
Federal lands that are at the highest threat of catastrophic 
wildfire and in need of immediate treatments. This would be 
carried out over a 10 year period. Billions of dollars have 
been appropriated by Congress to the Forest Service over the 
past year and a half to help support this work, yet funding 
alone will not fix the massive problems we have with wildfire 
and our forests. As the agency is moving forward with this 
work, this Committee needs to know what tools, what authorities 
or other resources the agency needs, and they must be vocal 
about it. And all the other partners must help to ensure that 
this work actually gets done as well.
    The farm bill should be used to help address some of these 
challenges in the West and across the National Forest System. 
The forestry title of the farm bill contains a variety of 
provisions, and we must expand the management authorities in 
this law. For example, the 2018 Farm Bill contained a renewal 
of the insect and disease categorical exclusion, expanded it to 
include hazardous fuels reduction. This is a commonsense change 
as disease and invasive species contribute to worsening forest 
health.
    Federal lands are not good neighbors because they are 
overstocked and overgrown, allowing our forests to become 
tinderboxes, ready to ignite onto adjacent private lands. We 
must expand the Good Neighbor Authority to encourage more 
partnerships with states, counties, and Tribes who have the 
ability to efficiently get projects done on the ground that 
will prevent wildfire and be more timely.
    More also needs to be done to help discourage litigation 
that only serves to undermine commonsense management projects 
that will help prevent wildfire. This includes legislating a 
full Cottonwood fix, a court decision which has held up or 
delayed forest restoration projects since 2015. The last farm 
bill also expanded the Landscape Scale Restoration Program on 
cross-boundary restoration and authorized new tools that allow 
for the collaborative treatment of hazardous fuel loads on 
bordering non-Federal lands. We need more of these authorities 
and partnerships that allow the Forest Service to administer 
these treatments immediately, which is needed on these at-risk 
acres to increase the pace and scale.
    The megafires you continue to see are not normal wildfires. 
We don't have to accept this as a new normal. Because they are 
landscape-scale wildfires, the proactive treatments must also 
be landscape scale to prevent them from breaking out in the 
first place.
    I would like to thank our witnesses for being here this 
morning and in person. I know it is not easy to come to 
Washington, D.C., with travel and taxi and hotels all being 
expensive and a pain of the rear getting sometimes, I will tell 
you, so we appreciate your valuable time and willingness to 
participate with us. We look forward to hearing your 
testimonies and sharing your expertise and recommendations with 
this Committee as we wrap up this farm bill process.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. LaMalfa follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. Doug LaMalfa, a Representative in Congress 
                            from California
    Good morning. Thank you all for being here and joining us for the 
very first hearing of the Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on 
Forestry.
    Today's hearing will focus on Title VIII of the 2018 Farm Bill and 
we will receive testimony from our panel of industry partners for their 
feedback. We hope to hear what is working, what isn't, and what 
recommendations our panel has for improvements for the next farm bill.
    Across the West, we continue to face a wildfire and forest health 
crisis. As we begin turning our attention to the next farm bill and 
discussions on this title, this Committee and Congress as a whole need 
to understand that this is a true crisis.
    The pace and scale of active management on these forests and 
landscapes must be drastically increased, and this must happen right 
now. We must undertake the paradigm shift that the Forest Service has 
been calling for and dramatically increase management to restore forest 
health, protect rural residents, and reduce the threat of catastrophic 
wildfire.
    In the past 5 years alone, we've seen some of the most destructive 
wildfires on record, especially in California. In my district, we have 
seen catastrophic damage from the 2018 Camp Fire in Paradise, the 2020 
North Complex Fire, the million-acre Dixie Fire in 2021, and many 
others.
    Since 2000, we have averaged more than 70,000 wildfires per year 
and an average of 7 million acres burned annually. This acreage is more 
than double the average number during the 1990s. Since 2018, we've had 
four fire seasons that have exceeded 7 million acres, including 2020 
when 10.1 million acres burned. We really don't even have a fire season 
anymore, as much as a fire year.
    The Forest Service must get more aggressive, increase partnerships 
with local governments and third parties, and cut more trees that will 
otherwise only contribute to declining forest health and the outbreak 
of new wildfires.
    Over the past 30 years, we have fallen way behind with our forest 
health and management goals, as well as timber harvest needed to 
promote health. We only harvest about \1/3\ of the timber we did at one 
time on Forest Service lands and routinely fall short of our allowable 
sale quantity across the National Forest System.
    The Forest Service is carrying out its proposed 10 year strategy to 
confront the wildfire crisis. Through this plan, the Forest Service has 
identified some 20 million acres of Federal land, and another 30 
million acres of adjacent non-Federal lands, that are at the highest 
threat of catastrophic wildfire and in need of immediate treatment. 
Billions of dollars have been appropriated by Congress to the Forest 
Service over the past year and a half to help support this work, yet 
funding alone won't fix the massive problems we have with wildfire and 
our forests.
    As the agency is moving forward with this work, this Committee 
needs to know what tools, authorities, or other resources the agency 
and all of our partners must have to ensure that this work actually 
gets done. The farm bill should be used to help address some of these 
challenges in the West and across the National Forest System.
    The forestry title of the farm bill contains a variety of 
provisions, and we must expand the management authorities in this law. 
For example, the 2018 Farm Bill contained a renewal of the insect and 
disease categorical exclusion and expanded it to include hazardous 
fuels reduction.
    This is a commonsense change, as disease and invasive species 
contribute to worsening forest health. Federal lands are not good 
neighbors because they are overstocked and overgrown, allowing our 
forests to become tinderboxes ready to ignite. We must expand Good 
Neighbor Authority to encourage more partnerships with states, 
counties, and Tribes who have the ability to efficiently get projects 
on the ground that will prevent wildfire.
    More also needs to be done to help discourage litigation that only 
serves to undermine commonsense management projects that will help 
prevent wildfire. This includes legislating a full Cottonwood fix, a 
court decision which has held up or delayed forest restoration projects 
since 2015.
    The last farm bill also expanded the Landscape Scale Restoration 
program on cross-boundary restoration; and authorized new tools that 
allow for the collaborative treatment of hazardous fuel loads on 
bordering non-Federal lands. We need more of these authorities and 
partnerships that allow the Forest Service to administer the treatments 
immediately needed on at-risk acres.
    The megafires we continue to see are not normal wildfires. Because 
they are landscape-scale wildfires, the proactive treatments must also 
be landscape-scale to prevent them from breaking out in the first 
place.
    I'd like to thank all of our witnesses for being here this morning 
and in person. I know it isn't easy to come to Washington, D.C., so we 
appreciate your valuable time and willingness to participate. We look 
forward to hearing your testimonies and sharing your expertise and 
recommendations with this Committee as we ramp up this farm bill 
process.

    The Chairman. So seeing who we have here today, we will 
move on to our witnesses. The chair would request that any 
other Members that would wish to submit their opening 
statements for the record so that we can have these--I can't 
talk. So the witnesses may begin their testimony to ensure that 
there is ample time for questions.
    So our first witness today is Ms. Ellen Shultzabarger, who 
is the State Forester for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. How 
did you manage that, Mr. Chairman? She is testifying today on 
behalf of the National Association of State Foresters.
    Okay. Then our next witness will be Mr. Skip Brandt, who is 
the First District, Idaho County Commissioner. He is testifying 
today on behalf of the National Association of Counties.
    Our third witness is Mr. Bill Imbergamo, the Executive 
Director of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition.
    And our fourth and final witness is Mr. Patrick Holmes, who 
is the Vice President of Urban Policy at American Forests.
    So thank you all for joining. Let's proceed with your 
testimony. And each of you will have 5 minutes. The timer in 
front of you will count down to 0, at which point your time has 
expired.
    So Ms. Shultzabarger, please begin when you are ready.

STATEMENT OF ELLEN SHULTZABARGER, STATE FORESTER AND DIRECTOR, 
               PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF FORESTRY, 
  DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION & NATURAL RESOURCES; TREASURER, 
                 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE 
                   FORESTERS, HARRISBURG, PA

    Ms. Shultzabarger. Good morning, all, and thank you, 
Chairman LaMalfa, Ranking Member Salinas, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, for holding this hearing today and allowing me 
the opportunity to testify on behalf of the National 
Association of State Foresters.
    I am Ellen Shultzabarger, and I am the Pennsylvania State 
Forester, and I also serve as Treasurer for the NASF.
    NASF represents the directors of the forestry agencies in 
all 50 states, the District of Columbia, five U.S. Territories, 
and the three nations in compacts of free association in the 
U.S. State Foresters manage and protect state and private 
forests, which encompass nearly \2/3\ of our forests 
nationwide. State forestry agencies are the primary delivery 
system for forest management activities, which include 
delivering technical and financial assistance to private 
landowners, protecting forest health and water resources, 
promoting the stewardship of all forests, including those in 
rural community and urban areas, and performing wildfire 
prevention and suppression across the country.
    This morning, I would like to highlight a few policy 
priorities NASF has identified for the next farm bill. First, 
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58) 
provides flexible funding for the State Forest Action Plan 
implementation, allowing states to address the highest forest 
management priorities. NASF supports creating an authorization 
of appropriation in the 2023 Farm Bill to ensure this flexible 
funding is secured into the future to enable states to 
effectively target State Forest Action Plan priority needs.
    Second, the 2018 Farm Bill expanded the Good Neighbor 
Authority to allow Tribes and counties to enter into Good 
Neighbor agreements. However, they were not afforded the 
authority to retain GNA revenues that would be reinvested back 
into those landscapes, greatly reducing the incentive to engage 
and partner on critical landscape projects.
    Additionally, the 2018 Farm Bill removed the ability for 
forest restoration services to take place off Federal lands 
under established Good Neighbor agreements. This means that 
adjacent state, Tribal, county, or other lands that are 
essential to the health and productivity of the National 
Forests can no longer be restored as a comprehensive landscape 
with the revenues generated from GNA projects. NASF supports 
authorizing counties and Tribes to retain and reinvest GNA 
project revenues, while also supporting the removal of the 
requirement that revenue must be spent solely on Federal lands.
    Third, the 2018 Farm Bill codified the Landscape Scale 
Restoration Program but also stipulated a new rural requirement 
for LSR, resulting in a subsequent rulemaking by the Forest 
Service limiting LSR work to communities of less than 50,000 
people. This change has significantly reduced the scope and 
efficacy of the program, eliminating many opportunities to work 
in critical communities to address large-scale issues such as 
wildfire risk reduction, watershed protection and restoration, 
and the spread of invasive plant, insects, and diseases. For 
example, many of these ineligible communities are found within 
high wildland-urban interface areas and are impacted by the 
spread of invasive pests or diseases. NASF supports modifying 
the language of the 2018 Farm Bill that designated LSR strictly 
as rural to allow for the program to address all identified 
critical forestry issues nationwide.
    Fourth, NASF supports an all-lands approach to 
reforestation by creating an authorization for appropriations 
in the farm bill to elevate and support the Forest Service 
Reforestation, Nurseries, and Genetic Resources Program, or 
RNGR, which supports Federal, state, Tribal, and private 
nurseries and seed orchards. This funding authorization would 
expand staffing to provide more technical assistance and 
training, to create opportunities for nurseries to upgrade old 
infrastructure, to promote practices to increase seedling 
production and also seed quality, and will better allow the 
Forest Service to serve as a convener for the increasing 
nationwide nursery tree improvement and tree planting efforts 
and great needs.
    We appreciate the Subcommittee holding this important 
hearing today to review the forestry provisions from the 2018 
Farm Bill and to work toward developing the next farm bill. I 
would also like to thank you, Chairman Thompson, for your 
longstanding support and leadership in forestry issues and 
opportunities across the U.S. and in Pennsylvania, and thank 
you for establishing this Subcommittee. Thank you so much for 
the time and your consideration of NASF recommendations.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Shultzabarger follows:]

Prepared Statement of Ellen Shultzabarger, State Forester and Director, 
 Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry, Department of Conservation & Natural 
    Resources; Treasurer, National Association of State Foresters, 
                             Harrisburg, PA
    The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) is pleased to 
provide written testimony to the House Agriculture Subcommittee on 
Forestry for this important hearing on ``A Review of Title VIII: 
Forestry Stakeholder Perspectives.'' Thank you, Chairman LaMalfa, 
Ranking Member Salinas, and Members of the Subcommittee for holding 
this hearing today and for the opportunity to testify on behalf of 
NASF.
    NASF represents the directors of the forestry agencies in all 50 
states, five U.S. Territories, three nations in compacts of free 
association with the U.S., and the District of Columbia. State 
foresters deliver technical and financial assistance to private 
landowners for the conservation of more than \2/3\ of the nation's 
forests. They also partner with Federal land management agencies 
through cooperative agreements and Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) to 
manage National Forests and grasslands. All state forestry agencies 
share a common mission to protect America's forests and most have 
statutory responsibilities to provide wildland fire protection on all 
lands, public and private.
    State foresters recognize the farm bill as a unique opportunity to 
support rural America's economic backbone and improve the quality of 
life for all Americans by enhancing support for America's trees and 
forests.
    Between the 2018 Farm Bill and the 2018 Omnibus Appropriations 
Bill, several significant achievements were accomplished, providing new 
authorities for improving forest management. The 2018 Farm Bill 
forestry title built upon 2014 achievements, streamlining decision-
making, expanding authorities within several programs and creating 
several new programs and authorities while continuing to address and 
provide for cross-boundary and landscape-scale forest management.
    Recent farm bills have also been instrumental in elevating the role 
of forestry in conservation title programs. State forestry agencies are 
proactively involved in working with our Federal counterparts to 
successfully implement these programs, providing invaluable support to 
small private landowners in their forest management needs. NASF 
appreciates the ongoing program support and attention in the farm bill 
that translates to tangible, on-the-ground progress through these 
collective efforts.
    State Foresters have established the following principles to guide 
the development of the next generation of forestry and conservation 
programs through the 2023 Farm Bill:
Codify State Forest Action Plan Implementation Funding
    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA/BIL) bill provides 
funding for State Forest Action Plan (SFAP) implementation. This is not 
a provision of IIJA/BIL but is part of the funding to the states and 
territories from the ``unspecified'' Division J funds, also referred to 
as ``state action plan funds.'' This funding is $40 million per year. 
After reductions for administrative activities for Business Ops, OIG, 
SPF S&E, there's about $31M to support states/Territories annually for 
5 years. These funds come to the Regions as SFAP (Budget Code) and are 
activated through specific programs: Forest Stewardship, Rural Forestry 
Assistance, Urban and Community Forestry, Cooperative Forest Health, 
and Cooperative Fire.
    NASF supports codifying this State Forest Action Plan 
Implementation authority which allows states to implement the highest 
priority forest management activities within their state, as identified 
and developed collaboratively with partners and stakeholders. 
Allocations to states would be formula-based and not competitive, 
supporting out-year planning and budgeting for match purposes. NASF 
supports an authorization of appropriation for $40M to be formulated to 
the USDA Forest Service's (Forest Service) new budget structure.
Good Neighbor Authority
    The Good Neighbor Authority program has allowed the Forest Service 
to partner with states on Federal forest restoration and management 
projects, facilitating critical work to improve species habitat, 
enhance watersheds, reduce hazardous fuels and mitigate wildfire risks.
    Since GNA was first authorized by Congress with the 2014 Farm Bill, 
at least 38 states have broken ground on over 380 GNA projects. Through 
these GNA projects, states are contributing to the restoration of 
Federal forests on an unprecedented scale. According to the 
Congressional Research Service, the amount of Forest Service timber 
sold under GNAs has increased from 14.4 million board feet in Fiscal 
Year (FY) 2016 to 182.6 million board feet in FY 2019.
    In the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress expanded GNA to make Tribes and 
Counties eligible entities to enter into Good Neighbor Agreements. 
However, Tribes and Counties were not afforded the same authority as 
states to retain GNA project revenues to reinvest in conservation, 
greatly reducing a significant incentive to engage and partner on 
critical management projects including wildfire mitigation, invasive 
species management, and habitat maintenance.
    Further, the 2018 Farm Bill removed the ability to carry out 
restoration services that were agreed to under the Good Neighbor 
Agreement to take place off Federal lands. As a result, adjacent state, 
Tribal, county, and other land that is essential to the health and 
productivity of National Forests can no longer be restored as a 
comprehensive landscape with revenues generated from GNA projects.
    NASF supports authorizing counties and Federally Recognized Tribes 
to retain and expend GNA timber sale revenues and restoring the cross-
boundary nature of GNA by removing the requirement that GNA timber sale 
revenues must be spent solely on Federal lands.
    Additionally, NASF supports further expanding GNA to all Federal 
land management agencies, making the authority permanent, or at a 
minimum extending the October 1, 2023, sunset date for states to retain 
GNA timber sale revenue, and amending GNA to authorize the 
reconstruction, repair, and restoration of roads administered by the 
Bureau of Land Management and other Federal agencies (should GNA be 
expanded to include other Federal land management agencies).
Landscape Scale Restoration Program
    The 2018 Farm Bill codified the Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR) 
program which was a key policy priority for NASF. The program 
originated with the 2008 Farm Bill and existed for a decade as a 
jointly administered program between the Forest Service and state 
forestry agencies.
    In addition to codifying the program, the 2018 Farm Bill also 
stipulated a new ``rural'' requirement for LSR. Consequently, and per a 
subsequent rulemaking made by the Forest Service, LSR work can only be 
conducted in communities made up of fewer than 50,000 people. This 
change significantly reduced the scope and efficacy of the program by 
prohibiting work in areas across the United States with legitimate need 
for LSR grant support.
    The LSR rural requirement has eliminated opportunities for state 
forestry agencies to leverage their Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF) 
program work, and greatly restricted their ability to conduct hazardous 
fuels reduction projects under LSR in areas with populations greater 
than 50,000, including many areas within the Wildland Urban Interface 
(WUI).
    LSR should be returned to a flexible program able to address the 
highest priority needs across landscapes as identified in state Forest 
Action Plans, regardless of community size. The program should not 
exclude larger communities or populations that depend on trees for 
their health and wellbeing, particularly in historically marginalized 
communities.
    Forests aren't just found on mountainsides or in wildlands, but in 
cities, towns and a vast array of communities. Community forests--
especially in areas with over 50,000 residents--are shown to 
significantly improve human health outcomes and provide tremendous 
socioeconomic benefits. Healthy community forests aren't a given; they 
take work. For decades, state forestry agencies have helped communities 
manage their forests by providing technical and financial assistance 
for the planting and care of street, park, and other community trees. 
State forestry agencies and their U&CF programs are crucial to ensuring 
all people have equitable access to the many benefits of trees.
    The LSR program has supported many successful U&CF projects in 
priority areas with competitive grant funding in the past. It is 
crucial that LSR projects can once again include U&CF work.
    NASF supports striking the rural requirement from LSR legislative 
language established in the 2018 Farm Bill. To be as impactful as 
possible across ownerships and on a landscape scale, all lands--
including cities, suburbs, and towns--should be eligible for LSR 
support as they were prior to the 2018 Farm Bill.
Support an ``All-Lands'' Approach to Reforestation by Creating a Stand-
        Alone Budget Line Item (BLI) for the USFS Reforestation, 
        Nurseries and Genetic Resources Program (RNGR)
    The Forest Service is the Federal agency responsible for helping 
states to produce, distribute, and plant seedlings on private land. In 
2001, the agency created the National Reforestation, Nursery, and 
Genetics Resources (RNGR) Program within State and Private Forestry. In 
2004, an agreement with the National Forest System and Research and 
Development expanded RNGR to better coordinate activities and outreach, 
use expertise more effectively, and provide program continuity.
    Technical specialists assigned to RNGR are located across the 
country. RNGR's first priority is direct technical assistance to 
Federal, Tribal, state, territorial, and private nurseries. The Forest 
Service National Seed Laboratory (NSL) is a key component of the RNGR 
Program, particularly important in addressing emerging germplasm 
conservation needs.
    The RNGR Program provides assistance in native plant seed and 
seedling production where other sources of technical assistance are 
unavailable. RNGR activities focus on:

   Adequate supplies of reasonably priced, high quality, 
        genetically well-adapted seedlings for conservation and 
        reforestation;

   Propagation and planting methods that improve seedling 
        survival and growth; and

   Cost-effective production and planting techniques.

    In the last few years, a significant amount of legislative, agency, 
NGO community and general public interest has been directed towards 
tree planting to address climate change and forest resilience, land 
reclamation, land rehabilitation after extreme fire events and the 
overall improvement of urban environments.
    Recognizing that this increased interest is likely to increase 
seedling demand, NASF conducted our second study of state forestry tree 
seedling nursery and tree improvement programs in 2021. The first 
study, completed in 2015 and published in 2016, aimed to provide a 
comprehensive look at state efforts in terms of quantities, species, 
program needs and other issues. The second study focused more on 
challenges, barriers and opportunities related to expanded production.
    The same year that second study was conducted, the journal 
Frontiers in Forests and Global Change published an article by multiple 
authors titled ``Challenges to the Reforestation Pipeline in the United 
States.''
    In the spring of 2022, the USDA Under Secretary's Office held a 
symposium to bring together a variety of experts from the state, 
Federal, private and NGO sectors to similarly identify challenges, 
barriers and opportunities involved in greatly accelerating tree 
planting across all lands, but with a particular focus on Federal 
lands.
    Results from these three separate efforts yield similar 
conclusions:

   An adequate work force, in terms of both skilled and general 
        labor, is lacking;

   Substantially more funding needs to go into the 
        infrastructure necessary to expand seed and seedling capacity; 
        and

   Information sharing to improve technical knowledge and 
        practices, and to better understand demands, climate change 
        impacts and other issues is necessary.

    The RNGR program is uniquely positioned to address these needs, but 
is sorely underfunded.
    NASF supports a new authorization for appropriations, creating a 
new BLI for RNGR and significantly increasing funding for the program 
with new dollars--i.e., not using funds redirected from other State and 
Private Forestry Programs. Funding would expand staffing to provide 
more technical assistance and training to address skilled staff 
shortages, create opportunities for nurseries to apply for 
infrastructure improvement/expansion grants, promote practices that 
reduce general labor needs without sacrificing quantities or qualities 
of seedlings and serve as a convenor of nursery/tree improvement/tree 
planting interests nationwide.
    NASF supports amending the Reforestation Trust Fund (16 U.S.C. 
1606(a)) to provide financial support to the Reforestation Nurseries 
and Genetic Resources (RNGR) program; to support Federal, state, 
Tribal, and private operated tree nurseries and seed orchards.
Enhance the Conservation Reserve Program
    When the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) was created in the late 
1980s, tree planting was envisioned as a prime way to address concerns 
over highly erodible agricultural soils. However, CRP did not envision 
how to support and incentivize beneficial forest health and 
conservation decisions by landowners as their trees under CRP reached 
maturity. In some parts of the country, CRP planted stands are over 30 
years old and reaching maturity, having been re-enrolled twice over. 
The landowners of such stands are at a critical decision point in their 
management; however, they are not allowed to harvest their trees while 
under a CRP contract. This is viewed by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) 
as tantamount to ``destroying the conservation cover,'' thus rendering 
the landowner ineligible for further participation in CRP. Moreover, if 
the landowner finishes a contract and then harvests their trees, their 
land is deemed by FSA to not meet the definition of ``eligible 
cropland'' and thus cannot be planted with trees again under CRP 
without significant investment to return the land to a plantable 
condition.
    CRP authorization needs to be amended to support forest landowners 
throughout the life of their stand, especially when a CRP-enrolled 
stand reaches maturity. CRP should allow for the landowner to re-enroll 
their acreage, as it still provides the same soil-retention and 
conservation benefits as when they first enrolled in CRP. At the very 
least, CRP policy should be amended to incentivize landowners with 
stands at maturity to replant in one of many conservation priority 
ecosystems across the country (ex--longleaf pine, bottomland hardwood, 
white oak, etc.). Without retaining CRP eligibility post-harvest, 
forest landowners could be incentivized to revert to agricultural 
production with society losing the soil-retention and conservation 
benefits forests provide.
    NASF further supports removing the one-re-enrollment limitation for 
hardwood stands in CRP. There should be no limitation on re-enrollment 
of forested acreage within CRP, hardwood or otherwise, as long as it 
continues to provide the resource benefits desired of CRP-enrolled 
lands. This is particularly true for stands that have undergone mid-
contract management to ensure they are healthy and at the proper stand 
density. This is important not only for hardwood forests across the 
nation, but also for supporting the expansion of longleaf pine acreage 
in the south, as FSA considers longleaf pine a hardwood for the 
purposes of this program and limits longleaf pine to a single re-
enrollment.
    Finally, CRP offers an annual payment to landowners who take highly 
erodible lands out of agricultural production. Various land cover 
types, including trees, are eligible for the program. The 2018 Farm 
Bill increased the overall cap on program acres, but hardwood tree 
planting projects are ineligible for ``Continuous Sign-up.'' This means 
they are not automatically enrolled and must compete against other 
projects in the ``General Sign-up'' process. The ranking criteria for 
``General Sign-up'' include air quality improvement, but do not mention 
carbon sequestration explicitly. A continued increase in the acreage 
cap, relaxing the maximum on rental payments, and placing greater 
priority on tree planting would result in increased carbon storage.
Bolster Post-Disaster Forest Landowner Assistance and the Emergency 
        Forest Restoration Program
    Since the 2018 Farm Bill was passed, forest landowners across the 
country have been impacted by a myriad of natural disasters. In the 
wake of hurricanes in the South, the 2020 Derecho in Iowa, catastrophic 
wildfires in the West, and tornados, ice storms and more everywhere in 
between, we have realized the significant Federal programming gap that 
exists in helping landowners reforest and get back on their feet. The 
Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP) which was codified in the 
2008 Farm Bill (Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008) has proven 
to be woefully inadequate and too bureaucratically cumbersome for most 
landowners to benefit from. Forest landowners should have equal support 
from the Federal Government compared to other agriculture commodities 
when faced with the impacts of natural disaster. Timely and 
ecologically proper timber salvage and reforestation helps ensure our 
nation's private forestlands continue to provide public benefits like 
clean air and water, recreational opportunities, rural economic 
stimulus and more.
    NASF supports fair post-disaster tax treatment for forest 
landowners through the inclusion of the Disaster Reforestation Act in 
the 2023 Farm Bill.
Promoting Cross-Boundary Wildfire Mitigation
    The 2018 Farm Bill amended section 103 of the Healthy Forests 
Restoration Act (16 U.S.C.  6513), providing a new authority for the 
Forest Service to spend up to $20 million on grants to state foresters 
for hazardous fuel reduction projects that cross land ownership 
boundaries, particularly in priority landscapes as identified in state 
FAPs.
    While section 8401 of the 2018 Farm Bill, Promoting Cross Boundary 
Wildfire Mitigation, is working well, there remains a need to increase 
the authorization of appropriation for this provision. Additionally, it 
is our understanding the Forest Service used this new authority to 
codify an existing mechanism for implementing cross-boundary hazardous 
fuels projects, commonly known as `Stevens Money.'
    The intent from the Forests in the Farm Bill Coalition for section 
8401 of the 2018 Farm Bill was to supplement existing mechanisms for 
implementing cross-boundary hazardous fuels projects and augment 
funding available to accomplish this work, not to codify `Stevens 
Money.' We look forward to working with Members of the Subcommittee and 
our partners in the Forests in the Farm Bill Coalition to develop a 
solution that will best utilize all available authorities and funding 
to accomplish this important work.
Amending the Definition of At-Risk Community
    The Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) contains a problematic 
definition for ``at-risk community'': ``wildland urban interface 
communities within the vicinity of Federal lands that are at high risk 
from wildfire''.
    The ``vicinity of Federal lands'' language has long been viewed as 
a problem by NASF because it is very restrictive, excluding communities 
that have been identified as ``at risk'' by state wildfire risk 
assessments and other collaboratively developed tools used by Federal 
and state agencies, such as the Pacific Northwest Quantitative Wildfire 
Risk Assessment and the Southern Wildfire Risk Assessment Portal.
    NASF looks forward to sharing our specific legislative language 
with Members of the Subcommittee to rectify this longstanding pitfall 
with the 2023 Farm Bill.
Address Projected Risks of Forest Conversion
    The 2010 Resources Planning Act Assessment (RPA) outlines the 
magnitude of the conversion challenge facing America's private 
forests--between 16 and 34 million acres projected to be lost to urban 
sprawl and development by 2060. The impacts of a loss of this magnitude 
will be felt across all the ecosystem services and economic benefits 
forests provide to the region--clean air and water, rural jobs and 
economic stimulus, wildlife habitat, and more. This challenge 
necessitates a dedicated and robust policy intervention.
    NASF supports installing programmatic recognition of the importance 
in supporting local planning decisions. The key to the loss of 
forestland across the country lies in a lack of information employed 
during individual local land use planning decisions, hence the need to 
support information delivery to local planners and decision makers. RPA 
finds that a variety of analytical tools exist to evaluate management 
and policy options to maintain intact natural ecosystems. NASF proposes 
that the farm bill articulate an authority and funding provision within 
the USFS Forest Stewardship and Urban and Community Forestry Programs 
that provides special technical assistance services and analysis 
capabilities for local governments to utilize data, models and 
analytical tools developed by RPA and other research institutions to 
promote interpretation of forest resource data in growth management 
planning.
    NASF supports installing a tax credit for land managed under a 
Forest Stewardship Plan. In many states, greenbelt or present-use 
valuation programs exist to support the retention of working forests on 
the landscape through preferential property tax treatment; however, no 
similar tax incentives exist in Federal Tax Code. Since loss of forest 
land is considered an issue of national and regional consequence, 
Federal tax recognition of the economic challenges of keeping forests 
on the landscape is appropriate, especially as market values or 
highest-use assessments of land increase and there is a greater 
incentive to convert these lands to other developed uses. NASF proposes 
a Federal tax credit instead of a deduction for property tax paid on 
forestlands that are enrolled in the Forest Stewardship Program or 
comparable programs which show ongoing sustainable management. NASF 
notes that should a Forest Stewardship Plan become more attractive to 
landowners as a result of this tax treatment then annual appropriations 
for the program must increase to support increased workload on State 
Forestry agencies in preparing and monitoring those plans.
Extend and Enhance the 2014 Farm Bill Insect & Disease (I&D) 
        Infestation Authority
    The 2014 Farm Bill provided states with the opportunity to 
highlight the scope and scale of the insect and disease epidemic on the 
National Forest System. In cooperation with states, the Forest Service 
has designated approximately 74 million acres nationwide as insect and 
disease treatment areas, but only a fraction of those acres have been 
treated. The lack of active management on Federal lands is threatening 
the continued flow of social, economic, and ecological values from our 
Federal forests as millions of acres continue to be impacted by 
insects, diseases, and uncharacteristic wildfires.
    NASF supports the extension of the September 30, 2023 sunset date 
to initiate scoping in order to utilize certain Healthy Forest 
Restoration Act processes for priority projects in designated I&D 
treatment areas; as well as increasing the farm bill I&D 3,000 acre 
categorical exclusion (CE) to 15,000 acres + acres or larger.
Amend and Modernize the Eligibility Requirements for the Volunteer Fire 
        Assistance (VFA) Program
    The current requirements are 40+ years old, and do not adequately 
represent the full suite of today's VFDs who need funding to protect 
the communities they serve from wildfire. The eligibility requirements 
for this program need to be updated and the authorizing language 
streamlined.
Enhance the Conservation Stewardship Program
    By acreage, CSP is the largest working lands conservation program 
in the country. It provides landowners a yearly payment for 
implementing enhanced conservation practices that go beyond basic 
conservation standards. Landowners must compete to enter the program 
and are deemed more competitive if they implement a ``bundle'' of 
enhancement practices. Under current regulation, forest landowners only 
have one bundle option: a set of enhancements aimed at improved 
wildlife habitat. Enhancement E612A involves converting cropland to 
trees for water quality protection. This practice would also increase 
carbon sequestration, but with the greatest volumes being sequestered 
10 years following planting. A bundle of enhancements should be 
constructed around extending contracts for tree plantings and 
optimizing carbon uptake in standing timber. This could be constructed 
in a manner that also improves water quality and wildlife habitat.
Support Source Water Protection and Stormwater Management
    Provision of water quality and management of stormwater runoff are 
two critical benefits provided by well-managed forests and are thus 
essential to keeping forests on the landscape. About 800 million 
forested acres in the U.S.--covering roughly \1/3\ of the country's 
land area--filter and supply more than 50% of the nation's drinking 
water. The rest of America's drinking water is sourced from watersheds 
that many researchers suggest could be improved through reforestation 
efforts and enhanced forest management. The water resource benefits 
that forests provide can be maximized through thoughtful forest 
planning and carefully applied management practices. Privately owned 
forests constitute about 60% of U.S. forests. Of those 445 million 
acres, non-corporate family forestland owners manage about \2/3\, or 
298 million acres. This means that purely based on volume, small-tract 
woodland owners as a collective have the opportunity to make a 
substantial positive impact on forest health--and ultimately watershed 
health--through forest management.
    NASF supports amending the 2018 Farm Bill language directing ``10% 
of conservation program funding to be used for practices that protect 
source water for drinking water'' to ensure greater priority is placed 
on surface water/forests (as opposed to groundwater).
Address Administrative Barriers to Forestry
    In addition to producing legislative change to improve and 
streamline Federal programs delivering forestry assistance, the farm 
bill serves an important influential function in encouraging the 
Administration to pursue certain actions. In this regard, we are eager 
to work with the Administration and its partners to utilize the tools 
and funding authorized by the farm bill to ensure and fulfill 
Congressional intent.
    There has been a growing demand for and use of forestry practices 
by landowners using cost-share assistance through the Natural Resource 
Conservation Service (NRCS) Environmental Quality Incentives Program 
(EQIP). However, while the demand appears fairly spatially uniform 
across the nation, the use of and priority placed on forestry practices 
varies substantially from state to state. There are a number of 
potential explanations (i.e., familiarity with practices, technical 
proficiency, interpersonal relationships, etc.); however, it is 
critical that forestry assistance is available to interested landowners 
in all states. NRCS should be encouraged to think programmatically 
about how to foster growth of forestry cost-share assistance in all 
states, especially those where forestry assistance has not 
traditionally been embraced as a priority but in which landowner demand 
exists.
    NASF supports the growth of forestry assistance through the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) by requiring state 
offices/technical committees to assess and establish priority forestry 
practices, as well as the expanded use of and financial support to 
State Forestry agencies to serve as Technical Service Providers (TSPs) 
for NRCS programs.
Support the Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership Program
    NASF supports expanding the Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration 
Partnership program (Joint Chiefs), as codified in the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act, to include an enhanced focus on invasive 
species control, and expanding eligible activities to allow treatments 
for erosion control materials and resource concerns related to native 
wildlife species, such as feral ungulates, small mammal predator 
control, invasive ants, and other insects.
    Additionally, NASF supports including a prioritization in Joint 
Chiefs and the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program for 
projects/proposals linked to a state's Forest Action Plan.
Conclusion
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee 
today and provide testimony on behalf of NASF. We appreciate the 
ongoing work of this Subcommittee to provide Federal and state forest 
managers, as well as private landowners, with tools that increase the 
pace and scale of science based, sustainable active forest management, 
cross boundary work, and rapid and effective response to insects, 
disease and wildland fire.
    We look forward to working with the Subcommittee, our partners with 
us here today and our Federal partners, including the Forest Service 
and NRCS on these matters, providing the collective insights of the 
nation's State Foresters in developing the 2023 Farm Bill. We are 
unified by a common goal: to support the health of America's trees and 
forests and the rural and urban communities which rely on them.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Shultzabarger, for your 
testimony and your thoughts on that. We look forward to posing 
some questions a little bit later in the hearing today, I 
appreciate your thoughts.
    So let's send it over to Mr. Brandt for 5 minutes. Go when 
you are ready.

         STATEMENT OF HON. R. SKIPPER ``SKIP'' BRANDT, 
    COMMISSIONER, IDAHO COUNTY, ID; REPRESENTATIVE, WESTERN 
             INTERSTATE REGION BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 
       NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, GRANGEVILLE, ID

    Mr. Brandt. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Thompson, 
Chairman LaMalfa, Ranking Member Salinas, and Members of the 
Subcommittee. Thank you for holding this hearing as 
negotiations are underway for the 2023 Farm Bill to see how we 
can strengthen the partnership between counties and Federal 
counterparts.
    I am here today on behalf of the National Association of 
Counties. My name is Skip Brandt, and I serve as a County 
Commissioner in Idaho County, Idaho, since 2007. I am a 
lifelong Idaho County resident. Although we only have just over 
17,000 residents, Idaho County is the largest county in the 
state by area. We have 5.5 million acres of land in our 
borders; 4.5 million acres of those lands are federally 
managed. That is larger than Connecticut and Rhode Island put 
together.
    While the National Forests within our jurisdiction 
represent a major economic asset for our communities we serve, 
many of those challenges that we face are also rooted in those 
public lands and our relationships with the Federal agencies 
that manage them. The 2023 Farm Bill represents a unique 
opportunity to reexamine the role of the counties in management 
of the public lands and consider a new approach of Federal 
policy that can better support current challenges from the 
counties' perspective and other local governments.
    Therefore, I would like to discuss a few points for the 
Committee's consideration. First, counties can serve as an 
integral role in the management of public lands throughout the 
country. Powers authorized in the farm bill such as the Good 
Neighbor Authority and shared stewardship contracting allow 
counties to partner with the Federal agencies to jointly plan 
and implement land management decisions. County government can 
also contribute resources and expertise as a cooperating agency 
under NEPA and often bring much-needed insight into local 
conditions that may otherwise be absent from the discussions. 
In turn, counties can provide essential services, law 
enforcement, infrastructure, as well as search and rescue.
    Idaho County has enjoyed a strong working relationship with 
the Forest Service. Most recently, we partnered with the Nez 
Perce-Clearwater National Forest on a Selway-Middle Fork 
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Project. Despite the 
success that we have enjoyed in working with our Federal 
partners, we often are hampered in the ability to help them 
manage our forest in support of our communities. Our county 
government operates under the economic constraints that 83 
percent of our land is under Federal management and therefore 
exempt from local taxes.
    We must also deal with the complications presented by our 
limited ability to influence Federal land management decisions 
and the bureaucratic obstacles that interfere with the Forest 
Service's mission to accomplish good managed forest. This has 
been particularly an area of concern, given the increase of 
catastrophic wildfires, most of which ignite on Federal lands. 
In the past, the Forest Service spent the bulk of its dollars 
on forest management such as timber harvest and mechanical 
thinning. Instead, wildfire suppression has become its major 
priority today. This means fewer and fewer resources are being 
devoted to treatment of the forest every year, a challenge that 
is amplified by the Forest Service's ongoing struggles in 
hiring and retaining employees.
    Through the farm bill's forestry title, there are 
additional tools that our Federal partners can leverage to help 
local governments address natural resource management 
challenges. First, we can continue to promote the collaboration 
in Public Lands Management by reauthorizing the Collaborative 
Forest Landscape Restoration Program and the Landscape Scale 
Restoration Program. When talking about truly treating the land 
to combat wildfire, a few--100 acre project is simply 
inadequate to get the job done. Reauthorizing these crucial 
programs would allow local government to partner with the 
Forest Service and give them more capacity to get things done 
on the ground.
    Finally, counties support fully extending the eligibility 
under the Good Neighbor Authority to counties. In the 2018 Farm 
Bill, counties and Tribes were not afforded the same authority 
as states to retain and reinvest GNA project receipts. Ensuring 
that counties can take full advantage of the Good Neighbor 
Authority will facilitate better land management decisions that 
are based on local impacts and needs.
    Chairman LaMalfa and Ranking Member Salinas, thank you for 
this opportunity, and thank you for inviting me to testify 
today. I just note that the lands will be managed one way or 
the other. They can be lightly managed by us, or they are going 
to be managed by Mother Nature. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Brandt follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. R. Skipper ``Skip'' Brandt, Commissioner, 
 Idaho County, ID; Representative, Western Interstate Region Board of 
      Directors, National Association of Counties, Grangeville, ID
    [Chairman LaMalfa], Ranking Member Salinas, and distinguished 
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 
before you today. I look forward to discussing the county role in 
public lands management and sharing recommendations for how the 2023 
Farm Bill can strengthen the partnership between counties and our 
Federal partners in the successful management of our public lands. We 
appreciate the opportunity to work toward our shared goal of promoting 
stewardship practices that can support both healthier forests and more 
dynamic communities across rural America.
    My name is Skip Brandt. I am a County Commissioner in Idaho County, 
Idaho, a role I've held since I was first elected in 2007. In my role 
as Commissioner, I serve as the Idaho representative to the National 
Association of Counties' (NACo) Western Interstate Region Board of 
Directors and also serve on NACo's Public Lands Steering Committee. 
NACo is the only national organization that represents all 3,069 
counties, parishes and boroughs in the United States, serving nearly 
40,000 county elected officials and 3.6 million county employees. 
Founded in 1935, NACo assists county governments in pursuing excellence 
in public service to produce healthy, vibrant, safe and resilient 
communities across the country.
    I am a lifelong resident of Idaho County, born in the county seat 
of Grangeville and raised in the town of Kooskia. In addition to my 
role as Commissioner, I've also served as a City Councilmember, Mayor, 
and a three-term Idaho State Senator. Up until 2 years ago, I owned and 
operated a local building supply store. I care deeply about my 
community, and I want to see it thrive through the promotion of a 
revitalized timber industry, greater recreation opportunities on public 
lands, healthy forests, and clean sources of water for our residents 
and visitors. Unfortunately, Idaho County and counties like it across 
America face numerous challenges stemming from our public lands that 
have negatively impacted the health of our environment and the 
livelihoods of our residents.
    With a total area of roughly 8,500\2\ miles, Idaho County is the 
largest county in the state and the only county that spans the entire 
Idaho panhandle, sharing borders with both Oregon and Montana. 
Grangeville is approximately 220 miles north of our state capital, 
Boise. With a population of just over 17,000, Idaho County is also 
distinctly rural in character. Like much of rural Idaho, Idaho County 
experiences higher rates of poverty relative to the rest of the state. 
The county's median household income is about $47,000--almost $16,000 
lower than the state average--while Idaho County's unemployment rate of 
4.9 percent is two percentage points higher than the state average.
    Many of the challenges facing Idaho County, as well as many 
potential opportunities, are rooted in our public lands. Idaho County 
contains over 4,400,000 acres--almost 7,000\2\ miles--of Federal land 
within its boundaries, larger than the entire areas of Connecticut and 
Rhode Island combined. No county in the country outside Alaska has as 
much land under Federal management. Roughly half of this land--
2,200,000 acres--is locked up behind wilderness designations that 
restrict its use. Most of Idaho County's public lands belong to the 
National Forest System (NFS) and are divided between six different 
National Forests:

   Nez Perce National Forest--2,224,091 acres

   Clearwater National Forest--870,807 acres

   Payette National Forest--804,853 acres

   Bitterroot National Forest--464,108 acres

   Salmon National Forest--66,074 acres

   Wallowa National Forest--1,787 acres

    Regardless of location, size or scope of services, all counties 
support stewardship practices that can sustain both healthier forests 
and more dynamic communities across America. The 2023 Farm Bill 
presents a unique opportunity to reexamine the county role in public 
lands management and restructure Federal policy that can better support 
current challenges counties experience on the local level.
    Today, I will discuss the following points for your consideration 
as the Subcommittee assesses challenges and opportunities for the 
Forestry Title of the 2023 Farm Bill:

   Counties play an integral role in public lands management 
        across the country.

   Despite our role in forest management, counties are 
        oftentimes hampered in our ability to manage our forests.

   Through the reauthorization of the farm bill, there are 
        additional tools that our Federal partners can leverage to 
        further help local governments address natural resource 
        management challenges.

    Counties play an integral role in public lands management across 
the country.

    Counties work with state and Federal partners to manage public 
lands in several key capacities.
    Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), counties are 
entitled to formally participate with Federal partners as a cooperating 
agency. By becoming a cooperating agency, a county can contribute its 
expertise to the environmental analysis process for land management 
projects, often bringing relevant insight and data on local economic, 
social, and community conditions, as well as integration opportunities 
with local natural resource plans and related efforts.
    In turn, counties can engage in joint management projects with 
Federal agencies through powers authorized in the farm bill, such as 
the Good Neighbor Authority and Shared Stewardship Contracting. These 
allow county governments, along with states and Tribes, to enter into 
long-term agreements with Federal agencies to collaborate on land 
management projects within their jurisdictions. However, counties lack 
the authority to collect receipts from the sale of forest products from 
these projects and invest them in additional conservation or 
restoration initiatives, as our state counterparts can do. This hampers 
our ability to plan and execute local visions of public lands 
management that serve the needs of our residents.
    Idaho County has enjoyed a strong relationship with Federal land 
management agencies that operate within our borders. Along with other 
land managers and local stakeholders, we work with USFS on projects in 
our National Forests as members of the Clearwater Basin Collaborative. 
Specifically, the Collaborative has partnered with the Nez Perce-
Clearwater National Forests on the Selway-Middle Fork Collaborative 
Forest Landscape Restoration Project. Completed from 2010 to 2019, we 
were able to jointly implement a wide variety of treatments across 1.4 
million acres in the Selway-Middle Fork project area, including 
hazardous fuel removal, invasive species management, and outdoor 
recreation enhancements.

    Despite our role in forest management, counties are oftentimes 
hampered in our ability to manageour forests and support our 
communities.

    Despite the success that we've enjoyed in our work with the USFS 
and other land management agencies, Idaho County and counties across 
the nation still face significant challenges that threaten our ability 
to adequately manage our forests and support the livelihoods of our 
communities that depend on our public lands. Idaho County understands 
the need to protect our natural resources. In addition to forestry, 
public lands recreation and tourism are major economic drivers in our 
communities. However, relying on recreation and tourism will not 
provide us with the diversified and dynamic economy this is necessary 
for long-term economic resilience, particularly when our communities 
are faced with the impacts of reduced timber harvests and the long-term 
decline of the forest products industry that still serves as the 
backbone of our local economy.
    While the National Forests within the county's jurisdiction 
represent a major economic asset for our communities, it also means 
that Idaho County's government operates under the economic constraint 
that 83.5 percent of our land is under Federal management--and 
therefore exempt from local taxation. Because of this, we are extremely 
limited when it comes to financing our vital county operations and 
services.
    Unfortunately, this obstacle is not unique to Idaho County. Sixty-
two percent of counties across the country have Federal land within 
their boundaries. Since the advent of our Federal lands system, 
counties with significant portions of untaxable public lands have 
struggled to make up revenue shortfalls, especially over the past 30 
years as Federal regulations drastically reduced timber harvests within 
the NFS. Even though we are not able to collect property taxes on 
Federal land, county governments must still provide essential services 
for our residents and those who visit these public lands each year. 
Such services include road and bridge maintenance, law enforcement, 
search and rescue, emergency medical care, fire protection, solid waste 
disposal and environmental compliance.
    Idaho County not only is mandated by the state to provide a broad 
range of local government services with a limited tax base, but we must 
also deal with the complications presented by the land management 
decisions made by Federal land management agencies. While we work 
closely with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to better manage the 
resources under their control, we are restricted in our ability to 
influence outcomes on Federal land within our jurisdiction.
    The landscape-scale catastrophic wildfires in the National Forests 
in Idaho and other Western states have had a disproportionately large 
impact on the ecological, social and economic life of Idaho County and 
our neighbors. The threat of wildfires has only worsened in recent 
years. Fire seasons last an average of 78 days longer compared to 40 
years ago. As a result, wildfire suppression eats up a greater share of 
the USFS budget every year. In the past, the USFS spent the bulk of its 
dollars on forest management, such as timber harvests and mechanical 
thinning, whereas today, suppression has become its major priority. 
Today, more staff is devoted to fighting fires than managing the 
forests. This challenge is amplified by USFS' ongoing challenges in 
hiring and retaining its workforce.
    Counties believe that active forest management is a cornerstone of 
responsible public lands stewardship. By reducing fuel loads within our 
National Forest System, we can combat the threat of catastrophic 
wildfires while in the process creating a healthy, thriving ecosystem 
that improves the economy of rural communities and the environment. 
Healthy forests contribute to clean water supplies and improved air 
quality. Biodiversity increases when we manage our forests in sound, 
scientific ways. Local economies see the benefits of both resource use 
and recreation. Nobody loses when our forests are healthy and 
resilient.
    We can achieve these goals by increasing timber harvests from our 
National Forests, reducing fuel loads through more mechanical thinning 
and controlled burns, reducing red tape through the National 
Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process, and combating frivolous 
special interest lawsuits that serve only to delay much-needed 
management of our National Forest System.

    Through the reauthorization of the farm bill, there are additional 
tools that our Federal partners can leverage to further help local 
governments address natural resource management challenges.

    The pending reauthorization of the farm bill poses significant 
opportunities to shape Federal policy that can better address the 
challenges that counties like Idaho County face. The farm bill is 
critical for county governments that are charged with delivering vital 
services to many of our nation's vulnerable communities. From clean 
water and broadband infrastructure to nutrition assistance and energy 
conservation--the farm bill helps all of America's counties access the 
resources they need to invest in strong and resilient communities.
    The forestry title of the 2023 Farm Bill gives Congress its best 
chance in 5 years to build the partnership between counties and our 
Federal partners to tackle our shared land management goals.
    Counties support the following priorities for the Forestry Title of 
the 2023 Farm Bill:
Promote Collaborative Land Management by Reauthorizing the 
        Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) and 
        the Landscape-Scale Restoration (LSR) Program
    Counties believe that active management of Federal lands and 
forests must be done in a sustainable manner that ensures the health of 
our Federal lands for generations to come. However, agencies like the 
USFS and BLM are hamstrung by their bureaucratic processes and 
inability to hire and retain employees. Allowing counties and Tribes to 
participate on the same level as the states would allow local 
governments to collaborate with the agency, providing more capacity to 
get work done on the ground. One way to help ensure a balanced approach 
to address natural resource management challenges is by promoting 
locally driven collaborative processes that promote consensus-driven 
decision making. Counties across the United States have engaged in 
collaborative efforts to address their natural resources challenges. By 
bringing a broad cross-section of local stakeholders into collaborative 
processes, counties, industry, outdoorsmen, conservationists, and 
Federal and state land managers have built consensus on some of the 
most complex natural resource management challenges.
    To do so, counties call on Congress to ensure that the appointment 
process for the USFS Resource Advisory Committees (RAC) is streamlined 
to ensure that appointees are approved promptly. Counties also support 
the reauthorization of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 
Program (CFLRP) and the Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR) Program. When 
talking about truly treating the land to combat wildfire and improve 
forest health, a few hundred-acre projects are simply inadequate to get 
the job done. By enabling stronger partnerships with county 
governments, programs like CFLRP and LSR give our agency partners real 
options to carry out meaningful landscape treatments. In turn, 
improving the process of authorizing limited and reasonable categorical 
exclusions for projects that improve forest health and have been 
developed through consensus-based collaborative processes will increase 
the number of acres treated and help to reduce the threat of wildfire.
Support Revenue Sharing for Shared Stewardship Contracts and Good 
        Neighbor Agreements
    Counties support the reauthorization and expansion of shared 
stewardship contracting authorities for Federal land management 
agencies. In addition to improving forest health and reducing wildfire 
risk, increased active management will generate more revenue for the 
Federal treasury and critical services provided by counties, while 
promoting job creation and economic growth in counties across the 
nation. The growth in stewardship contracting in recent years has shown 
that a market-driven approach to forest management projects can achieve 
both forest management goals and increased production.
    Counties support and are active partners in stewardship contracting 
initiatives across the United States, but unlike under a traditional 
Federal timber harvest, counties are not eligible for a 25 percent 
share of the revenues generated from a stewardship contract. Forest 
revenue sharing payments support critical county services such as 
transportation infrastructure and education. America's counties look 
forward to working with Congress to further strengthen forest revenue 
sharing between counties and the Federal Government by making counties 
eligible for 25 percent of the revenues generated from stewardship 
contracts.
    Additionally, counties call on Congress to expand the Good Neighbor 
Authority (GNA) to enhance the ability of the USFS and BLM to partner 
with counties on Federal forest restoration and management projects. 
The GNA program has allowed the USFS to partner with states on Federal 
forest restoration and management projects to improve wildlife 
habitats, enhance watersheds, and reduce wildfire risks. In the 2018 
Farm Bill, Congress amended GNA to make Tribes and counties eligible to 
enter into Good Neighbor Agreements. However, counties and Tribes were 
not afforded the same authority as states to retain GNA project 
receipts to reinvest in management projects, reducing a significant 
incentive to partner with USFS. Additionally, the 2018 Farm Bill 
removed the ability for restoration services to take place off Federal 
lands. This means adjacent state, county, and Tribal land that is 
essential to the health and productivity of National Forests can no 
longer be restored as comprehensive landscapes.
    Good Neighbor Agreements strengthen the partnership with Federal 
land management agencies and state, county and Tribal governments. 
Standardizing the use of GNA funds will help counties support forest 
management projects and facilitate better land management decisions 
based on local impacts and needs. To accomplish these goals, counties 
support the inclusion of H.R. 4705/S.2492--Treating Tribes and Counties 
as Good Neighbors Act, proposed by Senator James Risch and 
Representative Russ Fulcher in the 117th Congress in the 2023 Farm 
Bill.
Conclusion
    Chairman [LaMalfa] and Ranking Member Salinas, thank you for 
inviting me to share Idaho County's story.
    Counties stand ready to work with Congress and our Federal partners 
to develop a 2023 Farm Bill that will improve the health of our Federal 
forests. Counties continue to serve as essential partners in public 
lands management, as well as leaders in improving forest health across 
the country. We look forward to working with you to achieve our shared 
priorities for promoting responsible forest management that can serve 
the needs of our rural communities and the environment.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I look forward 
to your questions.

    The Chairman. Indeed. Thank you, Mr. Brandt.
    Let's go to Mr. Imbergamo for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ``BILL'' IMBERGAMO, EXECUTIVE 
         DIRECTOR, FEDERAL FOREST RESOURCE COALITION, 
                        WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Mr. Imbergamo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman LaMalfa, 
Ranking Member Salinas, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am 
Bill Imbergamo, and I am the Executive Director of the Federal 
Forest Resource Coalition. And I appreciate the opportunity to 
testify before you today. And we are very grateful for this 
Committee's efforts to streamline management of the National 
Forests, but I want to urge every Member of this Subcommittee 
to recall the horrific conditions we have seen in recent 
summers. While it is cold and wet now and it appears it will 
never stop snowing in the Sierras, we must remember that 80 
million acres of National Forests are at high risk to wildfire, 
insects, and drought. In 2020 and 2021, severe fires blanketed 
the entire country with smoke, with most of those fires burning 
on National Forest land. While Congress reacted by giving the 
Forest Service new funding and new authorities to restore our 
forest, much more remains to be done.
    I want to hit on some important context straight away. More 
than \1/2\ of the National Forest System is already in highly 
restricted land uses, including wilderness areas, roadless 
areas, and others. The critical authorities this Committee has 
enacted, including permanent stewardship contracting, expanding 
Good Neighbor Authority, and categorical exclusions do not open 
those lands to timber harvest. They do not waive a single 
forest plan standard or guideline. They merely give the Forest 
Service new tools to expedite management and work with partners 
on lands that are supposed to be managed under current law.
    And as I noted, my members work in communities surrounded 
by National Forests, and many spend their days working on the 
forest themselves, conducting management that creates wildlife 
habitat, reduces hazardous fuels, and provides raw materials 
which support domestic manufacturing jobs in rural communities. 
In the 2023 Farm Bill, we urge the Committee to build on the 
work done in previous farm bills, which were enacted with 
strong bipartisan support, and were signed by Presidents from 
both parties.
    And today, I want to focus on two key items from my written 
statement. First, proposed changes to stewardship contracting, 
and second, key modifications to the Good Neighbor program, 
which are very consistent with the remarks of the previous 
witnesses.
    Stewardship contracting has been in use for almost a 
quarter century and was made permanent in 2014 Farm Bill. 
Stewardship contracts allow the Forest Service to trade goods 
for services, including using the value of timber to help pay 
for wildlife habitat improvement and other activities. Congress 
established seven land management goals for stewardship, all of 
which are equal and equally laudable. Since it was enacted, it 
has become apparent that management goals are unattainable if 
there is no capacity to achieve them. Where there are no 
loggers, truckers, or wood-consuming facilities like sawmills, 
papermills, or biomass energy plants, it is either 
prohibitively expensive or otherwise impossible to conduct 
forest management activities.
    Throughout the National Forest System, stewardship 
treatment costs can vary widely depending on whether there is a 
market for the wood or not. Where there are robust markets, 
treatments can pay for themselves. Where that is not the case, 
treatment costs can run between $3,000 and $6,000 per acre. 
That is why we are recommending adding an additional land 
management goal to the stewardship contracting, encouraging the 
retention of existing forest products' infrastructure. This 
goal would not override the other goals established by 
Congress. It would merely make it an additional, coequal goal.
    Likewise, with Good Neighbor Authority, this Committee has 
taken the lead on expanding the authority to all 50 states and 
making Tribes and counties eligible. However, as the other 
witnesses have noted, the 2018 bill restricted the use of GNA 
receipts to Federal lands. This restriction appeared in the 
bill at the last minute as the conference committee was winding 
down, and it threatens to defeat the purposes of the program 
and dampen state interest in participation. We urge you to make 
GNA permanent for both the Forest Service and Bureau of Land 
Management and to allow GNA partners, including states, 
counties, and Tribes to retain some of the receipts generated 
by GNA projects.
    We also urge you to amend GNA to allow for a limited amount 
of road construction. GNA projects could help relocate poorly 
designed roads to areas where they cause less concern and thus 
help address the substantial road maintenance backlog on our 
National Forests.
    We also urge the Committee to consider adding language 
directing the Forest Service to cut and remove hazard trees to 
safely reopen roads following catastrophic fires. Too often, we 
see large areas of National Forest land become inaccessible for 
emergency response, recreational access, and future management 
following large fires.
    These changes and those discussed in depth in our written 
statement are intended to retain wood-using facilities, 
generate value from forest management, and help cover the costs 
associated with restoring our National Forests. In addition to 
hazardous fuels reduction, forest management can help create 
and maintain a wide variety of habitat types, including 
habitats for listed species like the red-cockaded woodpecker 
and Kirtland's warbler and declining species like the ruffed 
grouse.
    In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to testify and 
to discuss some of our priorities with you, and I look forward 
to working with you on a bill that improves the health of our 
forests and our rural communities.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Imbergamo follows:]

 Prepared Statement of William ``Bill'' Imbergamo, Executive Director, 
          Federal Forest Resource Coalition, Washington, D.C.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Federal 
Forest Resource Coalition, which represents purchasers of Federal 
timber in 37 states, with over 650 member companies and affiliated 
associations, collectively representing over 390,000 employees.
    FFRC is extremely grateful for the leadership this Committee has 
shown on National Forest Management issues in the last several farm 
bills, which have advanced some of the most effective and important 
policy changes aiding the Forest Service efforts to reverse the forest 
health and wildfire crisis that is challenging the sustainability of 
our Federal Forests.
    The 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills saw the expansion of Good Neighbor 
Authority, expansion of Designation by Description and Designation by 
Prescription, permanent reauthorization of Stewardship End-Results 
Contracting, and enactment of streamlined authorities to treat forest 
insects, disease, and reduce hazardous fuel loads on National Forests.
    The 2023 Farm Bill provides an opportunity to build on these 
successes to scale up management to meet the significant challenges 
facing the health and sustainability of the National Forest System.
    Good Neighbor Reform: The 2014 Farm Bill expanded Good Neighbor 
Authority (GNA) to all 50 states, following years of pilot authorities 
which allowed small scale work in several states. The 2018 Farm Bill 
expanded the GNA to counties and Tribes. The program has been a 
resounding success and we urge the Subcommittee to build upon it in the 
2023 Farm Bill. Since expanding the authority in the 2014 Bill, the 
number of acres treated annually under this program has grown by more 
than twenty-fold and is averaging more than 60,000 acres each year for 
the last 4 years.
    Since the 2014 Bill, more than three dozen states have begun work 
on over 380 GNA projects, tripling the number of acres treated. In 
addition to improving forest health, GNA has helped increase wood 
supply to bring additional needed forest products to market.
    The amount of Forest Service timber sold under GNAs has increased 
from 14.4 million board feet in FY 2016 to 262.9 million board feet in 
FY 2019. That's enough lumber to frame more than 20,000 single family 
homes. As many Americans struggle with finding affordable housing, this 
program is helping meet increased demand for housing.
    With states investing substantial sums of money to support 
implementation of Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) projects, including 
cross-boundary projects, treatment of revenue from GNA projects must 
reflect this reality.
    The 2018 Farm Bill limited the ability of states to utilize GNA 
project receipts on non-Federal lands--despite the clear direction in 
the legislation that these projects be conducted to improve forest 
health on both Federal and non-Federal lands. We note that this 
recommendation is consistent with those provided by the National 
Association of State Foresters.

    Action Requested:

   Amend 16 U.S. Code  2113b(2)(c) to allow States, Counties, 
        and Tribes to retain revenues generated through Good Neighbor 
        projects on non-Federal lands, pursuant to conditions specified 
        in Good Neighbor Agreements, and direct the Forest Service to 
        update existing Good Neighbor Master Agreements and Project 
        Agreements to use revenue from existing projects for this work.

   We also recommend that Congress consider amendments to the 
        GNA authority to allow new road construction and reconstruction 
        under GNA contracts on a limited basis. Restoration work on the 
        National Forest System is not limited the need to reduce 
        hazardous fuels; in many cases, older roads, placed without 
        adequate consideration of water quality impacts, should be 
        retired and replaced by better engineered, correctly placed 
        roads that address water quality issues as well as roads that 
        are just worn out and need reconstruction such as crushed 
        aggregate and vegetation removal for safe and efficient use.

   As you move to reauthorize these programs, we urge you to 
        make the above changes and extend the authority for this 
        program to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as well. The 
        2014 and 2018 Bills extended several forest management 
        authorities to the BLM, and this Committee should build upon 
        that precedent in the 2023 bill.

    Stewardship Contracting Amendments: The 2014 Farm Bill made 
Stewardship Contracting authority permanent, responding to a request 
from then-Chief Tom Tidwell. Stewardship Contracting has been a vital 
authority allowing the Forest Service to implement forest restoration 
and management projects. Stewardship Contracts now account for about 25 
percent of overall Forest Service timber sale volume, and in some 
regions, this total has grown to exceed 50 percent.
    As the use of this contracting tool has expanded, it has become 
clear that reforms are needed to ensure that the program doesn't result 
in unintended consequences, including inadequate resources for 
reforestation. Moreover, as the Forest Service struggles to expand its 
treatment of at-risk acres of National Forest System lands, it's become 
clear that retention of existing forest products infrastructure--
loggers, trucking capacity, and wood products facilities--is critical 
to achieving the paradigm shift the Forest Service has called for.
    In the last 3 years, we've seen the closure of seven sawmills 
located near millions of acres of fire prone National Forests, 
including mills in Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota. All these 
closures were precipitated--at least in part--due to insufficient wood 
supply from nearby National Forests. Loss of milling infrastructure is 
a major factor behind what the Forest Service calls its ``low-value 
material'' problem.
    Our initial analysis of Forest Service Forest Inventory & Analysis 
data show that there are substantial quantities of standing sawtimber 
on unreserved (non-Wilderness, non-Roadless) National Forest System 
lands across the United States. Using what are known as Integrated 
Resource Timber Contracts (IRTC's), the Forest Service can generate 
additional revenues to expand treatments--including non-commercial 
thinning, prescribed fire, and improved fish passage--while supporting 
family-wage, year-round jobs in forest management and wood products 
industries.
    By contrast, if nearby mills close, experience has taught us that 
attracting new investment--particularly where there are few non-Federal 
forests to support a forest products industry--can be extremely 
difficult. Following the loss of most sawmilling capacity in Arizona, 
the Forest Service has struggled for over 12 years to attract a 
capable, well capitalized industry to help it accomplish forest 
management work that will protect watersheds and communities from 
catastrophic fire.

    Action Requested:

    Amend 16 U.S. Code  6591c to strike Section (e)(B) and add 
clarifying language that requires deposits in the Knutson-Vandenberg 
Fund (authorized by 16 U.S.C.  576) for Stewardship End-Results 
Contracts that include merchantable timber.
    Further, amend the purposes of Stewardship End-Results Contracting 
Projects (16 U.S. Codes  6591(c)) to add an eighth ``land management 
goal'' of retaining and expanding existing forest products 
infrastructure, including logging capacity and wood consuming 
facilities, in proximity to the National Forests.
    Last, amend Stewardship Contracting Authority to allow some portion 
of retained receipts to help pay for required NEPA analysis for 
Stewardship projects.
    Encourage Restoration Work and Prevent Fire Escapes: We urge the 
Committees to use the 2023 Farm Bill to:

   Create a Federal prescribed fire claims fund to address the 
        risk of prescribed fire escapes or damages in instances when 
        Stewardship contractors adhere to identified best practices. 
        Ensure that this fund indemnifies project funders in addition 
        to contractors, and develop national standards for ``gross 
        negligence'' to define best practices.

   Create a cost-share program for the establishment and 
        maintenance of fuel breaks on non-Federal forest and range 
        land.

   Expedite the contracting process for forest thinning and 
        fuels reduction on high priority firesheds by:

     Directing the Forest Service to identify areas within 
            priority firesheds which need fuels reduction work.

     Solicit proposals for either commercial forest 
            thinning or non-commercial hazardous fuels reduction.

     Cover each project with (at a minimum) a 3,000 acre 
            Categorical Exclusion (either the hazardous fuels 
            reduction, insect and disease treatment, or fuel break 
            CE's).

     Amend the National Forest Management Act (Sec. 14(d)) 
            to increase the maximum dollar value of direct sale 
            contracts, currently capped at $10,000. This amount was 
            enacted into law in 1976 with no adjustment for inflation. 
            Congress should increase the value to $52,000 and require 
            the Forest Service to adjust the capped amount for 
            inflation each year.

     Congress should make clear that timber volume sold or 
            acres awarded through these direct contracts are expected 
            to produce both increased volume and acres treated above 
            the projects funded through the Forest Products and 
            Hazardous Fuels Reduction line items.

    Improving the Effectiveness of Farm Bill Insect and Disease, 
Hazardous Fuels Reduction Authorities: Beginning in the 2014 Farm Bill, 
Congress provided the Forest Service with the authority to 
``categorically exclude'' insect and disease treatments on up to 3,000 
acres of National Forest System lands. The 2018 Farm Bill expanded this 
authority to allow for hazardous fuels reduction work on acres 
designated using this authority.
    These authorities have proven effective in expediting needed forest 
management work. However, the size of the areas allowed to be treated 
is too small to effectively prevent catastrophic fires. The Caldor Fire 
in California provided numerous examples of effective fuels treatments 
using the farm bill CE.
    Within that fire's 221,000 acre burned footprint, there were at 
least five areas treated using the Insect & Disease and hazardous fuels 
mitigation CE's. In every case, where the Forest Service had completed 
all the steps of the fuels reduction process, the treatments reduced 
flame length, fire intensity, and rate of spread.
    However, the treatments were not conducted on enough acres to 
prevent the fire from being the first in history to burn over the crest 
of the Sierra Nevada mountains. Assuming all five categorical 
exclusions treated the 3,000 acre maximum, the treatments on the Caldor 
fire area amounted to 15,000 acres, or about seven percent of the fire 
area. If the Forest Service had been able to treat 15,000 acres under 
each CE, fire intensity and the damage resulting from it could have 
been reduced on fully \1/3\ of the fire and may have even allowed 
firefighters to control the fire sooner.
    It is critical to remember that the Categorical Exclusions provided 
to the Forest Service through the last two farm bills do not open a 
single new acre of land to timber harvest. Use of all Categorical 
Exclusions requires compliance with existing Forest Plans, including 
land allocations like designated Wilderness Areas, Inventoried Roadless 
Areas, and other areas where removal of vegetation is prohibited. 
Categorical Exclusions merely allow the Forest Service to quickly 
approve needed treatments after a brief review, rather than engaging in 
lengthier NEPA processes that have delayed projects as small as 1,600 
acres for as much as 5 years or more.
    Requested Action: Amend 16 U.S. Code  6591b to increase the number 
of acres which can be treated for fuels reduction and pest treatment 
from 3,000 to 15,000 acres and to allow their use on any area 
designated as a priority landscape under the Forest Service 10 year 
wildfire strategy.
    Eliminate Unnecessary Restrictions on Infrastructure Spending: The 
Infrastructure Investments & Jobs Act (IIJA, Public Law 117-51) 
provided unprecedented investments over the next 5 years for a wide 
range of forest management actions on National Forest System lands. In 
effect, this bill both authorized and appropriated funds for several 
new programs that impact all operations of the National Forest System, 
including those created from outside the Public Domain. That places 
these programs firmly within the jurisdiction of the Agriculture 
Committee, and we'd urge you to carefully review them as the 2023 Farm 
Bill approaches.
    Unfortunately, Congress chose to insert language limiting the 
application of these funds in ways that limits their effectiveness. For 
instance, the bill provided $500 million over 5 years for ``mechanical 
thinning and timber harvesting'' and ``pre-commercial thinning in young 
growth stands.'' However, each of these actions is limited with 
extraneous or redundant restrictions, including a limitation on 
precommercial thinning to include only those projects that produce 
``wildlife benefits to provide subsistence resources.''
    This requirement could be construed to limit the application of 
these new funds to only those National Forest System lands where a 
recognized Tribal government has valid subsistence rights, leaving 
large portions of the National Forest System ineligible for this 
important work.
    Requested Action: Amend IIJA authorities to eliminate duplicative, 
unnecessary, or unhelpful limitations on management.
    Streamline National Forest Management: Each National Forest is 
governed by a legally binding Forest Plan, developed through a 
collaborative process with ample opportunities for public involvement. 
Each Forest Plan designates some acres of National Forests as being 
``suited for timber production,'' while also recommending areas for 
more restrictive land uses, like wilderness designations.
    In practice, these Forest Plans take too long to develop, and 
frequently, they wind up producing binding restrictions on land 
management, while land management goals--like early seral habitat--are 
both difficult to achieve and are rarely monitored to determine whether 
they are attained. When the Forest Service proposes management 
actions--such as creation of young forests or thinning fire prone 
stands--the agency must begin entirely new NEPA processes that make 
fleeting--if any--reference to the underlying Forest Plan.
    The result is both an overly long planning process, and project 
level analysis that is too dense and voluminous to be of any use to 
anyone except experts. While the quantity of information required to 
move forward with a management project is impressive, the quality and 
accessibility to the public, leaves much to be desired. Moreover, 
conflicting court precedents, such as the disastrous Cottonwood case, 
have left in legal limbo whether Forest Plans are ``ongoing actions'' 
under the law. This has left the Forest Service vulnerable to frivolous 
lawsuits that frequently block or delay needed management projects.
    By one estimate, injunctions based on the erroneous Cottonwood 
precedent have stalled over 350 Million Board Feet of timber in the 
Forest Service Northern Region alone, enough timber to frame over 
29,000 single family homes. Congress stepped in and provided a partial 
fix to this problem in the 2018 Omnibus Appropriations bill. The 2023 
Farm Bill should be a vehicle to complete this work.
    Requested Action: Clarify that Forest Plans are not ``ongoing 
actions'' for the purposes of Federal law and make clear that 
consultation under the Endangered Species Act Section 7 is not required 
at the plan level. Second, Congress should, through amendments to the 
National Forest Management Act, clarify that projects conducted on 
acres designated as suited for timber production should be subjected to 
reduced analytical requirements under other statutes. Planning for an 
accounting for ``sensitive'' resources on the National Forest System 
must grapple with the fact that about half the acres are in restricted 
land uses and will likely never see management.
    Conclusion: FFRC appreciates the work this Committee has done to 
provide the Forest Service with streamlined authorities to accomplish 
needed work on the National Forests. As we've seen, the primary problem 
with these authorities is that they haven't gone far enough, fast 
enough. The forest health crisis on our National Forests threatens not 
only the forest industry that depends on those forests, but millions of 
Americans who need them for clean air, clean water, and places to 
recreate. The forest industry is a tool to help achieve management 
objectives on our National Forests--ranging from hazardous fuels 
reduction to the creation and maintenance of habitat for multiple 
wildlife species.
    By taking the steps outlined above, this Committee can help arrest 
the declines in forest health we've been witnessing for the last 30 
years and put our forests on a better path. We look forward to working 
with the Committee and the other stakeholders on today's panel to 
achieve these goals.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Imbergamo. I think I said it--
--
    Mr. Imbergamo. I answer to nearly anything.
    The Chairman. More correctly that time, right? Okay. Thank 
you. It is important.
    All right. Last, Mr. Holmes, you are up for 5 minutes. 
Thank you.

 STATEMENT OF PATRICK HOLMES, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, AMERICAN 
                      FORESTS, HELENA, MT

    Mr. Holmes. Thank you, Chairman LaMalfa, Ranking Member 
Salinas, and Members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity 
to appear before you today. I represent American Forests, the 
oldest national nonprofit conservation organization in the U.S.
    Since our founding in 1875, we have been guided by a very 
simple premise, that the health and resiliency of the nation's 
forests and of our forested communities goes hand in hand. Our 
organization is very proud of a deep history, dating back to 
our role in convening the first American Forest Conservation 
Congress in 1882, of supporting the forestry conservation 
movement, and we continue that work today.
    Notably, as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act, we led the coalition efforts supporting the bipartisan 
Repairing Existing Public Land by Adding Necessary Trees Act 
(H.R. 2049, 117th Congress), known as the REPLANT Act, which 
will provide the Forest Service with the funding to plant or 
support the natural growth of more than 1.2 billion trees over 
the next decade.
    With that history in context, it is our pleasure to 
participate in this inaugural meeting of the Subcommittee and 
to formally thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your role as a lead 
sponsor of the REPLANT Act and for your current leadership 
alongside the Subcommittee for focusing deliberations in our 
field in the run up to this new farm bill. As our President and 
CEO Jad Daley often says, ``We are one nation under trees.'' 
Forestry has a unique capacity to respond to some of our 
greatest challenges as a nation and to unite us around our 
divergent interests around shared goals.
    As Members and my fellow witnesses have testified today, 
our forests face great challenges, and American Forests is 
committed to ensuring that our forest land managers have the 
tools and the resources they need to respond. To that end, the 
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-334) made 
significant progress in areas of wildfire risk reduction, 
restoration of working forested landscapes, and bolstering 
markets for innovative wood products.
    While our organization emphatically supports those efforts 
as part of an effort to accelerate forest restoration and 
preventative measures in the face of the many threats others 
have noted today, we also believe that we must intensify 
efforts to recover our forest resources. Wildfires cause 
approximately 80 percent of reforestation needs on National 
Forest System lands and, alongside other threats, create 
substantial needs across all ownerships.
    Larger, more frequent, and more severe wildfires and 
shifting climate conditions are inhibiting our forests' 
abilities to regenerate on their own, eliminating nearby seed 
sources, altering conditions for success, and encouraging 
invasive species and shrubs that transform fire regimes. These 
are the conditions that are ripe for severe reburns and 
altogether forest loss across large swaths of our western 
landscapes. Although we often cite a history of past fire 
suppression as one of the leading causes of our current 
wildfire risk, we may one day look back at our failure to 
respond to these recovery needs as a dominant driver of our 
future forests and fire risks.
    A substantial portion of the 4 million acres of potential 
reforestation needs on National Forest System lands stems from 
wildfires over just a 2 year period of 2020 to 2021, which many 
have noted today was particularly severe. Passage of the 
REPLANT Act will help provide the resources to respond but will 
only address about \1/4\ of the current identified needs of 
just our National Forests and won't extend to address the 
emergent needs we expect that are coming and the needs 
confronting other land ownerships and amid other threats.
    To scale up, we must address a workforce and supply chain 
for reforestation that have atrophied among Federal, state, and 
Tribal nation partners. It sorely needs to be modernized and 
expanded. We further need to improve our planning and 
reforestation practices to tackle new, evolving, real-world 
challenges. Many of the standard reforestation practices arose 
from controlled field trials, and they have to be adapted today 
to evaluate the source and genetics of different species and 
integrate fuels treatments to address recurring wildfire risks. 
No funding source or program is currently supporting this 
applied research and planning work, nor is any program 
unlocking innovative approaches to workforce needs across the 
supply chain among partners.
    In response to these needs, we wish to highlight three top 
priorities for this farm bill. First, authorize and 
significantly increase appropriations for the Reforestation 
Nursery and Genetics Resource program, known as RNGR, within 
the Forest Service. RNGR is a vital but underfunded program. It 
needs to be expanded to at least $10 million per year to 
establish a predictable program of work that benefit state and 
Tribal nurseries.
    Second, establish a new competitive grant funding 
opportunity for reforestation research, nursery seed collection 
storage, and workforce needs. Our State Forest experiment 
stations, our colleges and universities can be leaders among 
public and private partners in helping to address these 
concerns.
    And third, establish loan and loan guarantee financing for 
nurseries serving public, private, and urban reforestation and 
recovery needs. Financing to expand and build new nursery 
capacity remains an important bottleneck in the supply chain 
that constrains the scope and scale of our work.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the 
Subcommittee today on behalf of American Forests. We look 
forward to being a leading and pragmatic voice on all facets of 
your forestry agenda for this farm bill and are grateful for 
all the work you will do on behalf of the nation's forests, 
your districts, and communities across the country moving 
forward.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Holmes follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Patrick Holmes, Senior Policy Advisor, American 
                          Forests, Helena, MT
    Thank you, Chairman LaMalfa, Ranking Member Salinas, and Members of 
the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to appear before you today.
    I represent American Forests, the oldest national nonprofit 
conservation organization in the United States. Since our founding in 
1875, our work has been guided by the simple notion that the health and 
resiliency of our nation's forests and communities, from coast to 
coast, goes hand in hand.
    We led the First American Forest Congress in 1882 that marked the 
launch of the forest conservation movement, drawing 50,000 people. Our 
work helped to spark the creation of the U.S. Forest Service and the 
National Forest System with the Second American Forest Congress in 
1905. We led the national effort to support passage of the Weeks Act of 
1911, which established the first National Forests in the eastern U.S. 
and subsequently helped rally the nation for the Memorial Tree planting 
program that launched the urban forest movement in America and the 
creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps, drawing on American 
Forests' experience leading restoration of European forests after World 
War I. In the aftermath of World War II, we led efforts to plan for the 
recovery of America's forests--hit hard to feed wartime needs--while 
simultaneously producing enough timber to build housing for returning 
soldiers. We helped to pass the National Forest Management Act to bring 
balanced, multiple-use management to America's National Forests. We co-
chaired the coalition that in 2018 secured enactment of the U.S. Forest 
Service ``Wildfire Funding Fix,'' providing for adequate funding for 
wildfire suppression without the need to further erode or borrow from 
other programs. Most recently, we championed efforts through the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and Inflation Reduction 
Act to support funding for wildfire prevention, forest restoration and 
innovative wood products. Notably, as part of the IIJA, we led the 
coalition effort supporting the bipartisan Repairing Existing Public 
Land by Adding Necessary Trees Act, known as the REPLANT Act, which 
will provide the United States Forest Service with funding to plant or 
support the natural growth of more than 1.2 billion trees over the next 
decade.
    With that history as context, it is our distinct pleasure to 
participate in this inaugural meeting of the Subcommittee and to have 
this opportunity to formally thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your past 
leadership as a lead cosponsor of the REPLANT Act, and for your current 
leadership along with Subcommittee Members in focusing dialogue and 
deliberations in our field in the run-up to a new farm bill. As our 
President and CEO Jad Daley often says, ``We are one nation under 
trees''--forestry has a unique capacity to respond to some of our 
greatest challenges as a nation and to unite divergent interests around 
shared goals. We hope and expect that forestry will continue to be a 
significant factor in the successful passage of a bipartisan and 
bicameral farm bill and look forward to being a leading pragmatic voice 
and resource for Members and their staff over the coming months.
    As Members will no doubt appreciate, today our nation's forests, 
public and private, rural and urban, face new threats from severe 
wildfire, drought, invasive species and insects and disease, owed to a 
history of past management decisions, resource constraints and the 
complicating factors of climate change. American Forests is committed 
to ensuring our public, urban and working forest land managers have the 
tools and resources they need to respond to these new threats and to 
safeguard the many values our forests provide, from diverse wood 
products, invaluable water supplies and clean air and carbon 
sequestration to abundant wildlife habitat, resilience to extreme heat, 
and a multitude of outdoor recreation, employment and economic 
opportunities.
    The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 made significant progress 
expanding tools and resources for wildfire risk reduction and 
resilience on public and private lands, incentivizing management and 
restoration of working forested landscapes and bolstering markets for 
forest products that together lend credence to the notion that an ounce 
of prevention is worth a pound of cure amid the threats facing our 
forests. These include provisions authorizing new financial assistance 
to states for hazardous fuel reduction projects that cross 
landownership boundaries; inclusion of the Timber Innovation Act 
provisions that establish, reauthorize and modify assistance programs 
to promote wood innovation for energy use and building construction and 
to facilitate the removal of forest biomass; and authorization of the 
Landscape Scale Restoration Program, a competitive grant program that 
promotes collaborative, science-based restoration of priority forest 
landscapes and furthers priorities identified in State Forest Action 
Plans or equivalent restoration strategies. American Forests and many 
of our partners believe that each of these changes and authorizations 
highlight opportunities for the Subcommittee to build from the prior 
farm bill's success with additional tools and flexibilities to enhance 
our ``all-hands, all lands'' approach of stewardship and restoration 
and help build resilience in the face of threats that don't stop at 
fence lines. That approach, and the additional program improvements it 
requires, will be our focus and that of our many national partners 
during this farm bill cycle.
    Within current authorizations, American Forests supports the 
strategic framework and spending priorities of the Forest Service's 10 
year Wildfire Crisis Strategy to implement funding provided under the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Inflation Reduction Act and 
annual appropriations. The scale and impact of our largest wildfires 
demands an acceleration of forest management and restoration 
treatments, moving beyond ``random acts of restoration'' to targeted, 
outcome-driven investments to meet the needs of at-risk communities, 
infrastructure and natural resources. The agency's approach to public 
and partner engagement, expedited implementation of grants and 
agreements, and recent adoption of large-scale partnership initiatives 
marks noteworthy progress. Notwithstanding this progress, we also 
believe there are significant opportunities for further improvement to 
accelerate implementation of authorities and programs addressed in 
IIJA, and to further unleash partnerships among local, state, Tribal 
nation, nonprofit and industry partners. In this moment, we must open 
the aperture to support new models of partnership and co-stewardship 
that foster predictability and consistency for needed programs of work 
and build from past progress.
    American Forests believes that alongside preventative efforts, we 
must redouble our investment in programs for recovering our forest 
resources in the aftermath of severe impacts. Our forests are facing a 
chronic, quiet crisis: if we fail to accelerate reforestation and long-
term recovery in the aftermath of large-scale severe impacts, we risk 
further jeopardizing the many benefits and values they provide in the 
long run. Wildfire alone causes approximately 80 percent of 
reforestation needs on National Forest System lands; exacerbated by 
extreme weather and impacts from drought and insects and disease, it 
creates significant need across all ownerships. Large, stand-replacing 
fires lead to sizeable areas without nearby seed sources for 
regeneration, allowing encroaching shrubland and invasive species to 
quickly catalyze type conversions that alter future forest composition 
and fuel dynamics. These changes often create conditions ripe for 
severe reburns in the form of future rapidly spreading, high-severity 
wildfire events. Although we often cite a history of past fire 
suppression as a leading cause of our current wildfire crisis, we may 
one day look back at our failure to respond to these long-term recovery 
needs of largescale severe wildfire events as a dominant driver of our 
future fire risk.
    A substantial portion of the over 4 million acres of potential 
reforestation needs on National Forest System lands stems from 
wildfires over just a 2 year period from 2020 to 2021, when more than 
2.5 million acres of National Forest System lands burned at high 
severity, adding to the 1.54 million acres of previously identified and 
verified needs.\1\ Recent passage of the REPLANT Act, which removes a 
cap on the Forest Service's Reforestation Trust Fund (RTF), will 
provide significant resources to respond to these urgent needs. That 
said, the agency expects that annual expenditures from RTF--even with 
the additional help the REPLANT Act provides--will likely meet only 
about \1/4\ of the current identified needs, and may fall woefully 
short as severe conditions expand in future fire years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ``National Forest System Reforestation Strategy: Growing and 
Nurturing Resilient Forests,'' USDA Forest Service, FS-1198, July 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the same time, our systems, workforce and supply chain for 
reforestation have atrophied over the years among Federal, state and 
Tribal nation partners and must be modernized and expanded to respond 
to these emergent needs. Consider that our past seed collection, 
storage and nursery infrastructure were sited and undertaken to support 
reforestation in the aftermath of predictable harvest units and must 
now also be repurposed and expanded to service a far larger and more 
uncertain set of wildfire, extreme weather and insect and disease 
needs. In Colorado alone, our estimates indicate that reforesting just 
ten percent of the severely burned acreage from 2020 fires would 
require 16.6 million seedlings. Optimistically, we have enough 
Ponderosa pine and Douglas fir (the workhorse species) seed in storage 
to grow 16 million seedlings total, meaning we have just enough 
capacity in the queue to address \1/10\ of the needs from one single 
fire year, with zero capacity to reforest 90 percent of that year's 
burn scars and 100 percent of the damage from all other years. This 
anecdote is indicative of conditions across many states. Expanding our 
seed collection, storage and nursery capacity presents a critical need 
in this supply chain.
    There is also a need to support improved planning, assessment and 
reforestation practices to tackle evolving, real-world recovery needs. 
Many of the standard reforestation practices arose from controlled 
field trials focused on testing regular spacing densities and 
subsequent treatments such as thinning, fertilization and control of 
competing vegetation. Today, we must not only evaluate the appropriate 
species and genetics for reforestation, we must also adopt planting and 
site preparation practices that improve success rates under anticipated 
future climate and weather conditions and integrate effective short- 
and long-term fuels treatments--all with an eye toward recreating the 
kind of diversity in stand structure necessary to withstand future 
wildfire and other threats. No funding source or program is currently 
supporting this applied research, planning and assessment work for 
reforestation needs among Federal, state, private, Tribal nation, 
nonprofit and land grant university partners; just as concerning, there 
is no programmatic avenue to fund innovating new approaches to fix 
workforce constraints that pose a huge threat to effective 
implementation.
    In response to these pressing needs, we wish to highlight three top 
priorities for our organization for this farm bill:
    First, authorize and significantly increase appropriations for the 
Reforestation, Nursery, and Genetics Resources Program (RNGR) within 
the Forest Service's State and Private Forestry deputy area to provide 
support for reforestation workforce, seedling and technical assistance 
needs facing state and Tribal nation nurseries. RNGR is a vital but 
underfunded program that provides targeted technical assistance, 
primarily to state and Tribal nurseries; it needs to be expanded to at 
least $10 million per year to meet a broader set of both technical and 
financial assistance needs facing state and Tribal nurseries and must 
complement and not detract from RTF investments made through the 
REPLANT Act supporting Federal lands and nurseries.
    Second, establish a new competitive grant funding opportunity for 
reforestation research, nursery, seed collection/storage and workforce 
needs through state agricultural and forestry experiment stations, 
colleges and universities, research organizations and private 
organizations. Such a program could be housed within the USDA's 
National Institute of Food and Agriculture and help land grant 
universities and colleges of forestry lead consortiums of public and 
private partners to advance reforestation applied research, assessment 
and planning needs and contribute solutions to barriers in seed 
collection, workforce and infrastructure for scaling our reforestation 
supply chains. Investment in the best new ideas and efforts fueled by 
this competitive program would yield exponential returns to address 
many of the needs outlined above.
    Third, establish nimble loan and loan guarantee financing for 
nurseries serving public, private and urban reforestation and recovery 
needs. Financing to expand and build new nursery capacity remains a 
bottleneck in the supply chain that constrains the scope and scale of 
reforestation initiatives nationwide. Financing in the form of low-cost 
loans and loan guarantees, along the lines of the provisions in Section 
113 of H.R. 2639 in the 117th Congress, would help state, private and 
Tribal nurseries develop, expand and improve quality control measures 
in response to forecasted demand, rather than simply current contracted 
supply needs.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee 
today on behalf of American Forests. We look forward to partnering with 
the Subcommittee on all facets of your forestry agenda for this farm 
bill and are grateful for all the work you will dedicate on behalf of 
the nation's forests, the communities in your districts, and Americans 
everywhere over the coming months.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Holmes, for your testimony and 
your thoughts on that.
    So at this point, Members' questions will be taken in order 
of seniority, alternating between Majority and Minority and in 
order of arrival for those who have joined us after the hearing 
has convened. You will be recognized for 5 minutes each in 
order to allow as much question time as possible.
    Therefore, I will recognize myself for 5 minutes, but I am 
going to immediately defer to the gentleman from Mississippi, 
Mr. Kelly, so that he can be in two places at once.
    Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we have competing 
interests, and this was the most important hearing I had today, 
on forestry. Mississippi has a huge forest.
    The pace and scale of forest management must be increased 
on millions of acres of forest lands. Despite the need to 
increase forest management, the Biden Administration is 
creating new barriers for land managers. Commissioner Brandt, 
you stated in your testimony that Federal regulations 
drastically reduced timber harvests within the National Forest 
System. Can you elaborate on these comments, please?
    Mr. Brandt. Well, as the witness to my left talked about 
access, access is probably one of the largest issues dealing 
with timber management. You can't afford to helicopter log 
everything, so you need to build roads. And roads, besides 
accessing the timber, also assist in fighting fire. One of the 
things right now in firefighting is that we are trying to do it 
completely by air again, and that is really expensive and not 
efficient. So I would say the regulations on road restrictions 
is huge.
    Mr. Kelly. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 
balance of my time to you.
    The Chairman. Reclaiming my time. Thank you, Mr. Kelly.
    Mr. Brandt, the forestry title has a clear impact on the 
timber community in Idaho County. Ranchers are also impacted by 
the way forestry programs are implemented. Over the last years, 
we have seen what happens if Federal policies to reduce 
hazardous fuels are incomplete or not effective. We know it is 
important to reduce the density of standing timber and prevent 
accumulation of fire fuels on the ground in order to have an 
effective strategy. Can you talk about how Idaho has 
implemented grazing as a land management tool, particularly as 
a complement to the forestry work in your county in your 
experience?
    Mr. Brandt. It is good to be popular on these questions. I 
would say that Idaho generally has a long track record of 
supporting grazing on public lands and to affect the grass 
element of the fires. However, because of access and the fire 
component, as well as in 1995 we were affected by the Federal 
Government with the Canadian gray wolf, and that poses a huge 
issue for grazers, who stick their cattle out in the forest 
hinterlands and have these wolves chase cattle all over the 
place. Besides depredation, it affects, of course, the health 
of the cattle and it pushes them off the grazing allotments in 
which then, of course, the grazer gets in trouble because his 
cattle aren't where they are supposed to be. And so the grazing 
component is a great tool, and I would say that it gets used a 
lot more in southwest Idaho because of the flatter terrain and 
less wolves.
    But again, going back to the fire, if a fire breaks out, 
those cattlemen have to go in immediately and collect all those 
cows and get them out of harm's way, and that is not exactly 
easy to do.
    The Chairman. All right, thank you for that. Let's go to 
Mr. Imbergamo on--Forest Service has only approved eight fuel 
break projects using the categorical exclusions, the CEs, which 
were enacted in November of 2021, covering fuels reduction on 
less than 13,000 acres. I mentioned earlier Forest Service 
oversees 193 million acres, and their 10 year plan was to go 
after 20 million on their own lands. So the Forest Service has 
yet to issue guidance on National Forest System units on how to 
use emergency action authority created in the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act. In your view, is this a matter of lack 
of funding, manpower, or something else? And what additional 
authorities or allocations can Congress provide to increase the 
pace and scale--probably in the authorities, I would imagine--
to increase the pace and scale of management of Forest Service 
land. So again, is it lack of funding, manpower, or other?
    Mr. Imbergamo. I am hard pressed to say, Mr. Chairman. 
Clearly, the Congress has provided substantial resources, about 
$800 million in the first 2022 supplemental and then about $5 
billion in the Infrastructure Act, and then about $1.5 billion 
in the Inflation Reduction Act. So resources doesn't seem to be 
the issue.
    In terms of the emergency authorities in particular, the 
Administration, USDA began consultation with Tribes on that 
only about 45 days ago, and that was enacted in November of 
2021. To me, it doesn't impart a sense of urgency to begin 
working on an emergency authority after about 14 months of 
having it.
    So in terms of improving response, I think scaling up the 
number of acres they can treat under some of the categorical 
exclusions, but I think also just generally oversight of what 
is going on within the agency.
    The Chairman. Okay. All right. We have burned my 5 minutes, 
so I will turn to our Ranking Member, Ms. Salinas, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Holmes--and thank you to all the panelists for being 
here today--your written testimony mentioned the wildfire 
funding fix secured in the 2018 omnibus, and it was a great 
step towards stabilizing the budget on non-fire programs within 
the U.S. Forest Service. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act and the Inflation Reduction Act increased grant 
opportunities, particularly for partners as of January of this 
year, and in particular for Oregonians who have submitted a 
total of $63.4 million in Federal grant requests to protect our 
forests and communities. However, we often hit these stopping 
points due to difficulties in navigating the agency or 
inadequate agency resources. How will the funding provided in 
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation 
Reduction Act increase agency capacity to better work with 
partners like yours?
    Mr. Holmes. Thank you, Ranking Member Salinas. The question 
is a great one. And I would frame that the contribution of the 
new funding as game-changing. As you know, and as you stated, 
prior to the 2018 fix in funding, there was a constant triage 
around the potential for fire borrowing to disrupt programs in 
any given year. Since that fix, there hasn't been significant 
increases until the bipartisan infrastructure law and now the 
Inflation Reduction Act. And that surge in funding offers the 
opportunity for organizations like American Forests to 
potentially move beyond a project-by-project partnership 
approach to one that is far more programmatic and efficient. It 
allows us to scale up our programs of work to higher staffing. 
As a nonprofit organization, we need that predictability of 
multiyear funding. It also allows the Forest Service to bring 
on the types of contracting and partnership agreement support 
it needs to work more effectively with partners.
    I would say that the Forest Service has made progress under 
the 10 year strategy that they have announced to prioritize 
resources, to streamline partnerships, grants and agreements, 
to develop more of these large-scale partnership agreements 
that they are calling Keystone agreements. But there are 
opportunities for that work to be expanded, and I think all of 
the witnesses here today have mentioned those opportunities 
spanning Tribal government, local government, state government, 
the private-sector and industry and nonprofit partners. 
Unleashing those partnerships right now at a time where 
capacity is one of the greatest limiting factors and 
accomplishing our work will be critical to everyone's 
collective success.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. And this question is for Ms. 
Shultzabarger. Your testimony mentions a need to support 
reforestation through support of the U.S. Forest Service 
Reforestation Nurseries and Genetic Resources program. Can you 
speak to the work that is being done to support seed orchards, 
particularly in states like my own, Oregon, and how Good 
Neighbor agreements are important for making that work really 
effective?
    Ms. Shultzabarger. Yes, great. Absolutely. So in the same 
ways that state agencies can support the Forest Service on say 
timber management or wildfire risk reduction or stream 
restoration, reforestation through the GNA, states can also 
lend their capacity and expertise to help with nurseries and 
seed orchards. So other states have been moving forward with 
GNA projects with National Forests and state seed orchards. And 
there are many, many opportunities for us to work together in 
building our nurseries and seed orchards together. So there is 
success already in place with other projects, and I think there 
is great opportunity for this to occur with orchards and 
nurseries as well.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. And then just hopefully a quick 
follow-up. It was recently reported that the State of 
Washington may actually need to utilize Oregon nurseries to 
meet their reforestation needs. And the Bipartisan Policy 
Center has separately identified a gap that the nation's 
nurseries are not really equipped to meet those skyrocketing 
demand for seedlings. Should we be looking at financing 
mechanisms like loans and loan guarantees through U.S. Forest 
Service to support our nation's nurseries?
    Ms. Shultzabarger. Yes, absolutely. And, my fellow 
witnesses also talked about the need for being able to fund 
those restoration and nursery opportunities. We have failing 
infrastructure in our nurseries. We have great needs for 
capacity for seed orchards and also for the staffing to be able 
to do so. So putting funding towards the nurseries would be 
very helpful.
    Ms. Salinas. And I have been hearing directly from my 
nurseries on that, so thank you.
    I will yield back. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Salinas.
    We will now turn to our colleague from Alabama, Mr. Moore.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Imbergamo, is that 
how you say it?
    Imbergamo, okay, got you. Thank you for your testimony this 
morning. As you are aware, the farm bill creates a robust 
framework for all jurisdictions in managing forest. In my home 
State of Alabama, upwards of 93 percent of our state's forests 
are privately owned. Can you talk a little bit about an active 
role as far as public-private partnerships and how that plays 
out in the management of these private forests?
    Mr. Imbergamo. Well, sure. I always say I don't represent 
the entire forest products industry, just those lucky enough to 
try to do business with the Forest Service. So that is the 
perspective I come at it from. My member companies across the 
country, hardly any of them solely rely on the Forest Service. 
Probably those in the Dakotas are the most reliant and those in 
Idaho as well.
    I think the reality is, if we don't have the National 
Forest well managed, that impacts the ability of private 
landowners to manage their forests. We are a highly cyclical 
industry. We are entering a bit of a downturn right at the 
moment. I always say my members enjoyed a brief bout of 
profitability the last couple of years. And when we go into 
these down periods, the Forest Service still manages their 
land. They are not economically motivated. That helps keep 
sawmills open and keep wood-consuming facilities in place. And 
if we can have the National Forest--they manage for a variety 
of reasons. They create habitat, they want to reduce fuel 
loads, that sort of thing, that helps keep the wood 
infrastructure existent and viable so that when we do have a 
return to more robust prices, private landowners have outlets 
for those wood products. So I would say that the system works 
in concert, not necessarily with--particularly in the 
Southeast, it is rather independent.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you.
    Ms. Shultzabarger, your testimony states that you would 
like to see a post-disaster forest landowner assistance program 
bolstered. In Alabama, this is particularly important to our 
foresters. I am an original cosponsor of Reps. Carter and 
Sewell's Disaster Reforestation Act of 2023 (H.R. 655). Aside 
from fair post-disaster tax treatment for private forest 
owners, what technical assistance can be provided to restore 
the forest to their pre-disaster conditions?
    Ms. Shultzabarger. Sure. There is a need to move quickly in 
these situations and get the assistance to the landowners, and 
also with those that are managing both the agricultural side of 
things and the forestry side of things. So often FSA lacks that 
technical forestry expertise. And as I said in my comments 
earlier today, state forestry agencies have those technical 
foresters on staff that can help provide that technical 
assistance and help provide that quick response needed in these 
situations. And so I think there are opportunities for FSA to 
lean on state forestry agencies for that technical assistance 
and outreach to landowners to get them what they need to get 
ready.
    Mr. Moore. Yes, and we deal with so many hurricanes. I can 
remember Hurricane Michael came through, and it looked like you 
had just dropped a giant lawnmower on all of the southeast part 
of the state in Georgia. So very often, I think it is important 
that we respond pretty quick in this post-disaster, especially 
in our part of the world. We lost so much timberland. So thank 
you.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    The Chairman. All right. Thank you to the gentleman.
    We will now turn to Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez from Washington 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Perez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all of 
our witnesses for being here today.
    Ms. Shultzabarger, you mentioned in your testimony the 
importance of Good Neighbor Authority, which right now is 
critical for our forests, especially Federal. If the Federal 
agencies aren't able to get boots on the ground, Good Neighbor 
Authority is critical to leverage state and local partners to 
get those important forest health projects completed.
    But we also know there is important work to be done on non-
Federal lands, which is why I am proud to be introducing a bill 
with Congressman Fulcher, the Treating Tribes and Counties as 
Good Neighbors Act (H.R. 1450). This bill expands the Good 
Neighbor Authority to allow Tribes and counties like mine to 
reinvest funds they receive from Good Neighbor Authority timber 
sales into the restoration projects and expand the abilities of 
all partners to have a restoration performed on their lands, 
not just Federal lands. This bill recognizes that Tribes and 
counties are on the frontlines of the challenges facing our 
Federal lands such as wildfire. And, those of us living in the 
WUI, living in these timber counties, we have a lot of 
incentive to get this work done. That is one of the reasons I 
think it is so important that we support this legislation.
    In your testimony you speak about the importance of 
expanding it. Could you speak to what these changes would mean 
for our states, counties, and Tribes and the health of our 
forests broadly?
    Ms. Shultzabarger. Sure. And, I mean, we all know in 
managing natural resources, we have to work at a landscape 
scale across boundaries, across ownerships, and it requires a 
collaborative approach. And so GNA has really worked for states 
and working with the Forest Service and getting good work on 
the ground, adding that capacity. And it works for states, and 
we feel that it could work for Tribes and counties, too. They 
just need those tools and those funds to go back to them to be 
able to do the same level of work that the states are doing. 
And this only adds that capacity and allows for further work 
within the national system and across that landscape of the 
GNA.
    Ms. Perez. Thank you. I would also like to talk about some 
of the challenges our resource-heavy counties face as we think 
about how to manage their lands and support our local 
communities. Skamania County where I live in the southeast 
corner, my district is 80 percent Forest Service land. It is a 
lot of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Mr. Brandt, your 
comments about the economic restraints of Idaho County 
Government really resonated with me as counties in my district 
faced similar issues. I really know what it feels like too, 
these county governments feel like they are always coming with 
their hand out asking for something when they want to think 
about ways to ensure their long-term prosperity. From your 
perspective, Mr. Brandt, how can we help these resource-heavy 
counties generate a sustainable income? Like what existing 
Federal programs can and should be leveraged to ensure their 
long-term economic viability?
    Mr. Brandt. Well, right off the bat, that is just land 
management. Growing up in Idaho County, I can only literally 
remember one day that our valley was socked in with smoke back 
in the day. However, at that time, we had eight sawmills 
running and vibrant sawmills. Now we have one and we have weeks 
and weeks of being socked in with smoke. So the component of 
tourism goes down when you have a summer filled full of smoke. 
Nobody wants to be on the rivers. And so dealing with the fire 
issue is probably the number one aspect outside the actual 
timber harvest.
    One of the issues right now in talking to Chief Moore, the 
Forest Service has money to attempt to increase harvest, but 
from that, they believe that an industry is going to come in 
and build a $50 million facility, and that is just not going to 
happen unless the Federal Government can come up with some way 
of guaranteeing that fiber supply for 30+ years. Nobody is 
going to come in and spend that kind of money in anticipation 
that the government isn't going to change their mind and shut 
down timber harvest.
    Ms. Perez. Thank you. I would like to touch briefly on the 
importance of workforce development within the timber and 
forestry sector. We saw so many of our biggest timber county 
losing their forestry programs in their high school levels. So 
in the last 30 seconds we have I just think it is important 
that we are thinking about building out a domestic workforce 
that can take on these jobs and enrich the local rural 
communities. Tourism is great, but we also need to focus on the 
natural resources we have.
    Mr. Holmes, would have loved to hear more from you on this 
about how we can address these constraints in workforce 
development, but thank you for your work on that.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
    The Chairman. All right. Thank you for your questions on 
that for a colleague from Washington. I will turn to our 
colleague from Oregon, Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I 
apologize for not being here for the live testimony, but I did 
read the testimony that was submitted to us so I just have a 
few questions.
    Ms. Shultzabarger, did I get that right?
    Ms. Shultzabarger. Shultzabarger, yes.
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you. Well, there was some 
technical assistance questions that were asked by my colleagues 
here, and so this might be a repeat for you, but can you tell 
me some examples of the technical assistance provided by the 
National Association of State Foresters to private landowners? 
And why is TA, technical assistance, so critical of a component 
to achieving state forest agencies' common mission of 
protecting America's forests? And have you identified any other 
opportunities for improvement in delivering the technical 
assistance specifically?
    Ms. Shultzabarger. Yes, absolutely. Knowing that most of 
the forests across the United States are privately owned and 
there is a lot of technical information regarding forest 
management, so you have restoration needs after a wildfire or 
needing to manage the forest to reduce the potential impacts of 
wildfire or the impacts from invasive species. So there are a 
lot of different ways that we connect with leaders to make them 
understand those issues that are potentially out there or how 
best to sustainably manage their forests moving forward. There 
are a lot of details and information that the technical 
assistance staff and foresters provide and make those 
connections within those to understand that there are 
opportunities and available funding or connections with 
consulting foresters to be able to best manage those lands that 
they have in their back 40 or the back 100 or 200.
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you. Commissioner Brandt, you 
mentioned in your statement frivolous special interest lawsuits 
only serve to delay much-needed management of the National 
Forest System. You also suggested in your testimony that 
Federal regulations drastically reduced timber harvests within 
the National Forest System. So kind of as a follow-up to those, 
how does the Endangered Species Act affect your work on both 
the Federal and private lands? And are there any programs that 
are especially hard to implement because of ESA?
    Mr. Brandt. With regards to the programs, I can't really 
answer that directly. But with regards to ESA, right now, the 
Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest, which has the biggest 
presence, I have six National Forests in my little county, and 
they have the heaviest presence. And they have right now three 
projects, two big ones that are tied up in lawsuits because of 
the ESA issues. And so that is the caveat. The Forest Service 
employees recognize that they need to manage the land, but 
whatever they do, there is a group out there that would rather 
it literally burn up naturally than have loggers go in there 
and actually treat the lands.
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Holmes, the Forest Service was allotted over $10 
billion from the Infrastructure and Jobs Act and the Inflation 
Reduction Act. With that in mind, some of the testimony we have 
heard today noted that the Forest Service is challenged in 
hiring and retaining workers, and I am concerned that a large 
pool of money like that going to an underemployed agency could 
lead to lost dollars and irresponsible spending. How can 
Congress provide the proper oversight or this funding on how 
partners like you or your organization help the Forest Service 
implement these dollars and ensure they reach the communities 
that are desperately in need?
    Mr. Holmes. Thank you for that question. Our organization 
has been heavily involved in the workforce issue and believe 
that there are opportunities for cooperators such as nonprofits 
to play the role of essentially serving as the farm team for 
our Federal agency partners. It is hard to get folks and talent 
into many of the rural places where most of this work needs to 
occur. And organizations like ourselves can help develop new 
training, new pathways that bring people from their academic 
institutions and backgrounds into careers in this service and 
position them to effectively onboard into the Federal system. 
So we would love to see the agency taking more advantage of 
those opportunities around restoration work and rightfully 
agree that there is a significant need to bring a focus both to 
the acute needs around workforce but longer-term issues as 
well.
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you. And with that, Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you to our colleague from Oregon. I 
will recognize myself once again for 5 full minutes this time. 
And indeed, we will have additional rounds of questions for 
those that would wish to stay or come on back.
    All right. Ms. Shultzabarger, our states are on opposite 
ends of the country, but we both have--our home areas live the 
importance of proper forest management and our industry to our 
local economies of the timber industry. So the 2014 Farm Bill 
expanded the Good Neighbor Authority to all 50 states, and the 
2018 Farm Bill expanded to counties and Tribes, as has been 
emphasized heavily on the panel here today. And we have stuff 
to fix on that with the ability to have the revenue, be more 
flexible to put it right back into the work that they are 
doing. So indeed that has our attention, and you have all done 
a really good job of underlining that today, so we will work 
hard on that in this upcoming farm bill to fix what was 
basically an oversight or a last minute, something on that, 
okay?
    But please emphasize for us what other incentives can be 
provided to both public and private partners to continue and 
expand the work that is so greatly needed in the West, as well 
as in your region.
    Ms. Shultzabarger. Specific to GNA or just generally?
    The Chairman. We hope to get the GNA fix done but expanding 
beyond that when we are talking about the pace and scale of 
forestry work that needs to be done, mostly on Federal land, 
but anything on your mind on the Federal incentives we can move 
in this direction.
    Mr. Brandt. Sure. I think when you think about increasing 
that pace and scale, obviously--and I had already mentioned the 
need for partnerships and being able to work at that large 
landscape collaborative scale across different ownerships and 
tools like GNA tools, like the Joint Chiefs grants, the tools 
like LSR really enable and support that landscape scale, which 
really we need to look at when you think about managing 
invasives or you are looking at restoring a landscape, being 
able to cross those boundaries and have flexible ways that we 
can get funds to partners, to counties, different state 
agencies and Federal to be able to be flexible in getting those 
funds out there. And so, GNA, Joint Chiefs, LSR, and I had also 
talked about that rural piece in the LSR language and really 
one of the----
    The Chairman. Yes, once you drill down on that a little bit 
more in your opening comments, you were talking about that, the 
50,000 and less and lower-population towns and how that has 
been a real impediment on WUI and everything. Please?
    Ms. Shultzabarger. Right. And a lot of times, many of the 
issues that we have result around people in forests, right? 
That is how often invasives or pests and diseases are spread. 
And it is different across the U.S., I understand this, but in 
Pennsylvania, 99 percent of our wildfires are human-caused, and 
so we see an increase in wildfires in those communities, that 
50,000 and above, and being able to target funds in those areas 
where we need to be connecting with people working to reduce 
that wildfire risk around those high-populated communities. It 
just really has made it difficult to make those connections 
where we really need to make those connections. So that that 
would be helpful.
    The Chairman. On the larger ones. How does that work on the 
smaller ones?
    Ms. Shultzabarger. The smaller ones we are able to--funding 
is able to be put in those smaller areas, but in the larger 
areas, then those funds or that grant program cannot be 
utilized in that area.
    The Chairman. So that is something we need to be looking 
at, too. Would we expand the number or raise the number? What 
would we do?
    Ms. Shultzabarger. We would essentially raise the number or 
remove that rural designation, so that would allow it to be in 
all community types. Trees are beneficial in many, many 
different ways or forest management in those, be it rural, 
community, or urban forest is really important. There is great 
opportunity.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Imbergamo, on a post-fire situation when we are getting 
into salvage and recovery, what can we do to fix the bogging 
down of that? I am short on time here, but we will come back 
later perhaps.
    Mr. Imbergamo. Yes. Sir, one of the things we could do is 
the agency gave itself a new authority called determination of 
NEPA adequacy, which enabled--it would enable them to use an 
already-decided NEPA document, and they can make the 
determination that that NEPA document adequately addresses the 
issues after a fire, and they can still do the project if only 
part of the project area is affected. Unfortunately, what we 
frequently see is the agency drops back, reinitiates NEPA, 
possibly reinitiates ESA consultation. And, wood has an 
expiration date on it. Depending on where you are, it is longer 
or shorter depending on if you are in an arid climate or a 
humid climate.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Imbergamo. But using that authority more aggressively, 
and frankly, having a plan before the disturbance. We know what 
kind of disturbances are affecting the National Forests, fire 
in the West, hurricanes in the Southeast, wind events in the 
Northeast and having a plan on what to do on general forest 
acres and implementing it immediately would help address 
reforestation and capture more value.
    The Chairman. Okay. Thank you. My time has passed. Ranking 
Member Salinas, do you have additional----
    Ms. Salinas. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
allowing us additional time.
    Mr. Brandt, in your testimony, you mentioned the need to 
reauthorize both the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 
Program and the Landscape Scale Restoration Program, and we 
have discussed this a lot here. And you mentioned needing 
stronger partnerships to ensure that these programs are 
successful. From your experience with the Clearwater Basin 
Collaborative, what opportunities do you think there are for 
stronger partnerships?
    Mr. Brandt. Well, number one, if the counties were able to 
gain the GNA receipts aspect to put back into the ground, I 
mean, you are dealing with small counties--we don't have a 
forester. We have a fire mitigation person. But we are limited. 
Our noxious weed department has two employees. I mean, that is 
really the component that I see as the largest gain is if we 
can have receipts to go back to the ground, we can hire people. 
I don't have to take 6 to 9 months to do a background check 
like the Forest Service does. I can hire a forester tomorrow 
and put him out on the ground the next day. And same with 
noxious weeds or any employee. So again, funding components are 
probably the number one aspect of beyond their agreements.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. And, Oregon is fortunate. We 
received nearly $11.7 million last April for five of these 
projects, and I think our communities are really excited about 
it. And this may be the same question, just asked in a 
different way. But what is, in your opinion, needed to maximize 
collaboratives like these, and what changes should be made to 
the program?
    Mr. Brandt. I think they have pretty--I have covered as 
best I can.
    Ms. Salinas. Yes.
    Mr. Brandt. Again, it gets into funding aspects, and 
anything that could, again, limit the lawsuits that that come 
about. They attempted--Congress, in putting together the 
collaborative efforts, attempted to take that away. But again, 
there are groups out there that do not want the Forest Service 
to manage the land. They want it to be natural. And they are 
just sitting back, waiting for the opportunity to sue to tie up 
a project.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you.
    And then Mr. Imbergamo, in your opinion, does the U.S. 
Forest Service have capacity issues right now? And do you 
believe current staffing issues contribute to those capacity 
issues?
    Mr. Imbergamo. Yes, they do have staffing issues now. They 
lost over 8,000 silviculturists and engineers in the early 
2000s. They had about 8,000 retirements coming at them, and 
they largely did not restaff in those positions. And they are 
down quite a number of positions. I would say that my industry 
is also down quite a number of positions in the mills that have 
closed and also in the mills that have remained open. We have 
done things like automate and contract for things. That is 
definitely a way that they could increase their capacity.
    The other way that they could increase their capacity would 
be to reduce the planning time, the lead time required to get a 
project on the ground. And that would be through more 
aggressive use of the expedited authorities that Congress has 
already passed.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. And one follow-up question. Will 
the funding provided by the Inflation Reduction Act help 
address the 39 percent drop in forest management staff that was 
brought about by fire borrowing?
    Mr. Imbergamo. Yes, both Inflation Reduction and the 
Infrastructure Acts should provide some ability to make up for 
some of those things. The one thing about both of those laws is 
they were enacted without much regard for the agency's budget 
structure, and so that might be a worthwhile conversation with 
the agency is how to better align those pots of money with the 
new budget structure which, quite frankly, within the agency is 
poorly understood.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you so much, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. Our Committee Chairman has rejoined us, and I 
will recognize him for 5 minutes for any questions he has.
    Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. My apologies 
for having to step out here with--but I am glad to be back, and 
I thank you all and your written testimonies. So I have a 
couple questions. Invasive insects and plant species have had 
devastating effects on forest health and need to be treated 
through active management, I would argue, using landscape 
approach like we try to do with addressing preventing 
wildfires. We have seen this devastation in Pennsylvania with 
pests such as the spotted lantern fly, the gypsy moth, and the 
current plant species of the day, which is a glossy buckthorn.
    Director Shultzabarger, can you speak to the challenges 
that we have seen in Pennsylvania with invasive species? And 
how can Congress assist the Forest Service and forest industry 
to work with state forestry agencies, forest managers, and 
other partners to address these challenges?
    Ms. Shultzabarger. Yes, it seems that our crisis in the 
East is definitely invasive species, and glossy buckthorn is 
the new one. And if you are not aware, it is a bush that 
essentially changes the character, no longer forest, and is 
quite impactful. But the ability for organizations, be it 
Federal, state, county to be able to--or nonprofits and 
landowners to be able to work together at a landscape scale is 
probably the most critical way to make change.
    In Pennsylvania around the Allegheny National Forest, we 
have the Allegheny Forest Health Collaborative, which has been 
an extremely successful group and tool in getting information 
out there about what is going on, how to address and treat some 
of these species and help bring together potential funding 
streams and share ways that we can make an impact to these 
resources at a larger scale because if everybody is doing one 
piece here and there, we are really not going to address the 
issue of the spreading invasive species. So the ability to get 
these funds like GNA, Joint Chiefs, LSR, and there is 
cooperative weed management areas, to be able to have funding 
go there to provide that technical assistance to prioritize 
funding and really target those treatments at a landscape scale 
to help address an issue is probably the most critical piece is 
having everybody involved.
    Mr. Thompson. Yes, absolutely. It really is an all-hands-
on-deck, right?
    Ms. Shultzabarger. Yes, it is.
    Mr. Thompson. And reducing the barriers to that and, again, 
I appreciate with your testimony that you had provided. I was 
trying to anticipate unintended consequences and provide 
clarity so that as folks in the Executive Branch, with Forest 
Service are executing exactly what the intent of Congress was. 
And believe it or not, that doesn't always happen. So that is 
where the oversight is so important that we stay at the table.
    Mr. Imbergamo, good to see you. Are you familiar with the 
Cottonwood case?
    Mr. Imbergamo. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Thompson. Excellent. Can you tell us what the status of 
this precedent is?
    Mr. Imbergamo. So Cottonwood was a case in Montana, 
possibly Idaho, sorry. And the gist of it is--the result is 
that the Forest Service has to go and consult with Fish and 
Wildlife Service on the underlying forest plan even if Fish and 
Wildlife Service has no concerns about the project, they have 
no take or jeopardy concerns for the listed species. This has 
made the Forest Service go back and consult on forest plans 
that are old enough to drive, some of which were adopted in the 
1980s. In fact, the injunction that was in place in New Mexico 
in Mr. Vasquez's district was on a plan that was adopted in 
1989. And that enjoined all activity for about 13 months, and 
that area was the area that the Hermits Peak Fire burned.
    The Obama Administration appealed that to the Supreme 
Court, and Congress provided a sort of stay of execution in the 
2018 omnibus bill that actually expires at the end of this 
month, and that fix only partially addressed the precedent. We 
actually right now have in Region 1, which is where Idaho is, 
we have about 300 million feet enjoined in Cottonwood cases. 
That is enough to frame about 26,000 houses.
    Mr. Thompson. That is a lot of fuel for wildfires, which 
are devastating, as we know, the forest health, human health, 
the economy. And so I am looking forward to working with the 
Chairman and the Ranking Member as we put together this 
forestry title in the farm bill so that we can really advance 
and I think build on the successes that we had in 2014 and 2018 
for the forestry title.
    So thank you, and my time has expired.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will get after 
that. So I feel we can kind of keep going here a little bit, 
and we have, yes, so we haven't taken that much time yet.
    So, Commissioner Brandt, in your statement, you talked 
about frivolous special interest lawsuits that only serve to 
delay much-needed management of the forest system. Would you 
elaborate on that a little bit? Because I certainly feel it in 
my area in northern California, especially post-fire, but this 
is important pre-fire, too, on being able to do the commonsense 
management.
    Mr. Brandt. Yes, sir. And I turn to my other witnesses with 
regards to--and the term skips my mind, but when individuals 
sue and then they are reimbursed expenses----
    Mr. Imbergamo. Equal Access to Justice (Pub. L. 96-481).
    Mr. Brandt. Equal Access to Justice I think is a huge 
component that fuels that fire if you will. And if there could 
be something done with that, I think that would assist the 
agency in a huge way.
    The Chairman. Elaborate a little more on that, please.
    Mr. Imbergamo. If somebody sues the Forest Service and 
wins, the Forest Service basically writes the suing entity a 
check.
    The Chairman. Yes. And they tend to get a little gun shy 
about trying to step out and do projects, it seems, so----
    Mr. Imbergamo. Yes, that that is true, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. So the Federal regulations have reduced 
timber harvests within the forest system. What regulations do 
we need to be looking at, whether it is part of the farm bill 
or outside of that, I mean, we are not trying to get away with 
murder here. We are behind by 50 years. Go ahead.
    Mr. Imbergamo. Absolutely. Again, I am lifelong resident of 
the Clearwater Valley. My house overlooks the confluence of the 
South Fork into the main stem. It is where I live, I play. It 
is where I am going to retire. I am not trying to overharvest 
somebody else's backyard. This is my home, and it is important 
to me. And the dynamic of--I sort of lost track there. The 
dynamic of what we want to get done on the ground is 
complicated by the Forest Service's processes. I mean, the 
Forest Service never gets rid of any of their internal process. 
They just keep stacking on top. And that gets back to just 
their inability to hire employees where it takes 9 months to 
just do a background check. You can get a fully automatic 
machine gun, and it takes less to do a background check there. 
But just to get employed by a Federal agency like the Forest 
Service, it is just----
    The Chairman. Back to the process I think several on the 
panel have talked about with workforce here, with the 
frustration of getting the workforce filled up, whether it was 
within the agency or even out there in the private-sector, so 
we have to incentivize that somehow. And to your issue, you 
talked about, Mr. Brandt, earlier, too, with 83 percent of the 
land in your county in Idaho is federally owned, so we get into 
the PILT, payment in lieu of taxes.
    Mr. Brandt. SRS.
    The Chairman. What we hope to keep fronting, I guess, or 
something, and the SRS, Secure Rural Schools, which those 
folks, they came to my office here recently. It seems like a 
hat in hand every year or every at least extension of keeping 
the backfill from the loss of the industry.
    Now anybody on the panel wish to touch on the PILT or 
especially the SRS?
    Mr. Brandt. Well, I'll jump out first. Again, going back to 
the days when I was in school, our school system was the 
wealthiest school system in the state. Now we are one of the 
poorest. Again, because we were doing regular timber harvest 
projects, we would reap 25 percent of the stumpage fee. And now 
that we have gone away from really logging but going more into 
regular stewardship instead of standard timber harvest, we 
don't get that--that 25 percent is not set back for the 
counties, for the schools and roads.
    The Chairman. So that is an anomaly, too, with the 
stewardship where the Secure Rural Schools used to receive the 
timber receipts for schools and roads within counties. That 
money has bypassed that.
    Mr. Imbergamo. Yes, sir, it has. And I just note that, 
right now, about 25 percent of the Forest Service sale program 
goes out of stewardship contracts, so those do not generate 
receipts for the counties in California. It is north of 35 or 
38 percent.
    The Chairman. And that also needs to be repaired in the 
Good Neighbor Authority where the dollars that would come from 
that work are not staying local either to help replace the 
Secure Rural Schools funding that we have to come hat in hand 
to D.C. for, right?
    Mr. Imbergamo. I believe that is correct, sir, yes.
    The Chairman. Yes, okay.
    Mr. Brandt. I just note that the component of stewardship 
funding that the agency gets, it is very specific on how the 
agency can use it. It is to go to the ground and to treat the 
ground, not necessarily a payment to the county schools and 
infrastructure.
    The Chairman. Right. Okay. Well, maybe that is not so bad. 
All right.
    I will recognize Ranking Member Salinas, and we will 
probably call it a day after that, okay?
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    So, Mr. Holmes, you can bring us home here. You mentioned 
the need to authorize and appropriate more funding for the 
Reforestation Nursery and Genetic Resources Program. How would 
this benefit Federal lands?
    Mr. Holmes. Thank you for the question. The RNGR program 
supports primarily technical and financial assistance for state 
and Tribal nurseries, and in that regard, complements a lot of 
the work that happens on our Federal lands and Federal 
nurseries. As you know, many of the impacts from insect and 
disease wildfire know no boundary, and so we view the RNGR 
investment as an important complementary investment to what 
Congress has authorized through the REPLANT Act moving forward.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. And I do have a follow-up. So your 
second recommendation is to establish a competitive grant 
funding opportunity for reforestation research, nursery and 
seed collection, seed storage, and workforce needs. Why is it 
important that this is done in partnership with state 
agricultural and forestry research stations, colleges and 
universities, and other researchers?
    Mr. Holmes. Right now, our conventional practices for 
reforestation, as I mentioned during my testimony, are really 
based on these rather antiquated field trials we did many years 
ago with certain spacings. The opportunities to go back in to 
do thinning for regrowth, to do treatments of herbicide or 
other things to control competing vegetation. The realities we 
are facing in a post-fire context in particular, but also in 
response to these other threats, require completely rethinking 
those practices. They also require rethinking what seed and 
genetic sources are going to be the most productive over the 
long haul in those regions. And then we also have to integrate 
future fuels treatments and think about what the future 
condition of fuels is on the forest as where we are 
reestablishing stand structures.
    There is currently no funding to do that kind of applied 
work and research and in addition to support the needed 
monitoring. Our land-grant universities, our agricultural and 
forestry experiment stations could be at the tip of the spear 
of supporting a lot of the work and indeed many are and I think 
could play an exciting convening role, bringing public-sector, 
private-sector partners together around that set of problems.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Salinas.
    I think at this point, I would like to offer all of our 
panelists 60 seconds each to close with any compelling thoughts 
we have missed here today. So let's start on the left with Ms. 
Shultzabarger again.
    Ms. Shultzabarger. Oh, okay, rapid fire compelling thought. 
Yes, essentially what we have talked about is there is we have 
some good starts in the farm bill and some areas that we could 
provide some clarity to be able to really provide those on-the-
ground results through GNA or LSR. And we just really 
appreciate the time and listening to the different 
opportunities, and we are happy to talk further about any of 
these opportunities to make some effective changes to really 
broaden our landscape scale approach, so thank you very much.
    The Chairman. Thank you again for your testimony and your 
appearance today, Ms. Shultzabarger.
    Mr. Brandt?
    Mr. Brandt. Well, I just thank the Committee. And this is 
exciting to have this opportunity and have the possibility of 
fixing a potentially broke system, so I look forward to moving 
forward with the farm bill and hopefully finding a solution to 
not have the counties coming back with hat in hand asking for 
PILT payments and SRS payments.
    The Chairman. All right. Thank you. We look forward to any 
communications you would like to send to us to help us in 
shaping the farm bill policy. Thank you, Mr. Brandt, for your 
time and appearance here today.
    Mr. Imbergamo?
    Mr. Imbergamo. So in the summer of 2014 I had lunch in 
Greenville in your district. And it is my understanding that 
that town is no longer there, that it was burned to the ground 
by that fire.
    The Chairman. Seventy-five percent of the buildings are not 
there. They are chipping away, coming back. They have a great 
spirit there, so yes, sir.
    Mr. Imbergamo. And I think that if I can try to be 
compelling, the compelling thought is we have to start acting 
year-round like that is the crisis that we are facing. We 
cannot afford to have summers where we burn an entire National 
Forest in one summer. That is what we have experienced in 2020 
and 2021. Thankfully, 2022 was a bit of a reprieve, but the 
conditions that would allow that to happen are present on the 
landscape. And we need to start acting like a change in 
paradigm is sincere and is happening year-round, not just 
when--there is no trouble mobilizing resources when there is a 
large fire on the horizon. We just have to realize that fire is 
always on the horizon even when we cannot see the smoke plume.
    The Chairman. I appreciate it. Thank you for that.
    Mr. Holmes?
    Mr. Holmes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. We 
very much appreciate the discussion today, as well as, again, 
want to reiterate our thanks to you for the focus you are 
bringing on our field as part of this Subcommittee's work.
    One area we didn't touch on today is the importance of 
forestry that spans multiple other titles of the farm bill, 
notably, research, conservation, and rural development. I just 
want to highlight that that integration is really valuable to 
our industry and our partnerships. And I also want to offer 
again that our organization is eager to be a resource, a 
pragmatic voice as part of this farm bill reauthorization for 
you and your staff, so thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Holmes.
    Ranking Member Salinas, do you have any closing statement 
or thoughts?
    Ms. Salinas. Yes, just quickly, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank the witnesses today for your travel and 
your time. You have provided great insight and expertise on 
forestry provisions from the 2018 Farm Bill and possible areas 
where we can make some positive changes, and I am looking 
forward to that work. Your views will essentially help guide us 
to reduce the risk posed by catastrophic wildfire, pests, and 
disease and promote the creation of jobs and rural opportunity 
and particularly in my district. So I am really excited to 
figure out what the restoration economy really looks like 
moving forward.
    And I would like to thank the Chairman, Chairman LaMalfa, 
for organizing this kickoff hearing for the Forestry 
Subcommittee, and I look forward to more hearings and events as 
we work towards that 2023 Farm Bill. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Salinas.
    I want to thank our staff, our teams on each side for 
really making it happen and organization of today's hearing. I 
look forward to doing a lot more of this. I think we indeed 
have to have a lot more discussion and action to help our 
nation's forests. As my constituents when I go see them, they 
are just tired of being under the gun of fire danger. I am 
tired of seeing my towns being threatened and disappearing in a 
ball of fire, loss of life. As mentioned, 85 lives lost in that 
large fire in Paradise. We have to look at some of the issues 
that need to be truly reformed, not to skirt the laws that are 
on the books but to make them modernized, make them work for 
us, the NEPA issue, whether it is pre-fire work or post-fire. 
It needs to be brought into line so that it actually is 
practical for the people doing good things on the ground.
    Endangered Species Act, we need to look and see is that 
really working well to recover species for the offset of what 
it costs in time and effort to do projects that need to be 
done. There are lawsuits, as was mentioned, as well. It seems 
it is more a way to just block the good work that needs to be 
done and put money in the pockets of those that have nothing to 
do with the industry or the communities that rely on the 
product. Why is the United States the number two importer of 
wood of any country in the world when we have so much in our 
own backyard?
    As I kind of heard mentioned at the end, we need to look at 
this with urgency. We do have an emergency situation. We did 
dodge a bullet a lot in 2022 with the massive fires we saw in 
2021 and 2020 and 2019 and 2018 and going back into, a little 
farther back in some of the North Bay Area, my colleagues like 
Mr. Thompson and others have had to deal with over there.
    We have to treat this with great urgency, and I don't 
always see that in the pace and scale with which some 
Representatives or agencies move. So, I mean, my goal with the 
immediate issue of fire danger is that, let's get these fires 
put out before the fire has a name and before there is a T-
shirt vendor onsite with the name of that fire and yet another 
graphic for us. We can do a lot more of this in time, okay?
    So we have much to do. I look forward to more of these 
hearings and bringing a broader scope of folks into place to 
look at all the aspects, do something that is fair, something 
that is right but at the end of the day very productive.
    So with that, thanks again to our panelists. We do 
appreciate your time and effort to be here and your testimony 
and look forward to communicating with you going forward. 
Thanks to our Ranking Member for her patience and time as I am 
really, really into this and want to see some of this stuff 
happen, so thanks so much, and God bless you.
    And this hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
     Submitted Letter by Jack Waldorf, Executive Director, Western 
                         Governors' Association
March 8, 2023

 
 
 
Hon. Doug LaMalfa,                   Hon. Andrea Salinas,
Chairman,                            Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Forestry,            Subcommittee on Forestry,
House Committee on Agriculture,      House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;                    Washington, D.C.
 

    Dear Chairman LaMalfa and Ranking Member Salinas:

    With respect to the Subcommittee's March 8 hearing, ``A Review of 
Title VIII: Forestry Stakeholder Perspectives,'' attached please find 
two Western Governors' Association policy resolutions:

   WGA Policy Resolution 2021-03, National Forest and Rangeland 
        Management; and

   WGA Policy Resolution 2023-01, Working Lands, Working 
        Communities.

    These policy resolutions convey Western Governors' collective, 
bipartisan policy on cross-boundary forest management, wildfire risk 
reduction, timber market development and other forestry topics. I 
request that you include this document in the official record of the 
hearing, as these resolutions articulate specific policy 
recommendations germane to Title VIII of the 2023 Farm Bill.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter and your consideration 
of this request. Please contact me if you have any questions or require 
further information.
            Sincerely,
            
            
Jack Waldorf,
Executive Director.
                              attachment 1
Policy Resolution 2021-03, National Forest and Rangeland Management
A. Background
  1.  The American West encompasses a huge landmass representing 2.4 
            million square miles, or over \2/3\ of the entire country. 
            Over 116 million people live in these states and they 
            reside in large, densely populated cities, smaller cities 
            and towns, and in rural areas.

  2.  Western communities share a unique relationship with natural 
            resources. Communities in the West depend upon healthy 
            forests and rangelands for jobs, recreation, and quality of 
            life. Conversely, effective natural resource management is 
            only possible if rural and resource-dependent communities 
            are healthy, vibrant, and prosperous.

  3.  There are approximately 346 million acres of timber land in the 
            West, of which 104 million acres are privately owned. In 
            the United States, rangelands comprise about 31 percent of 
            the total land area, approximately 761 million acres, which 
            occur mostly in the West.

  4.  A high proportion of western lands are managed by the Federal 
            Government. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 
            through the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), manages over 168 
            million acres of forests, rangelands, and grasslands 
            through the National Forest System (NFS). Approximately 11 
            percent of all western lands are in the NFS. Western states 
            include more than 75 percent of our National Forest and 
            grassland system.

  5.  Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies, through the Bureau of 
            Land Management (BLM), manage a substantial portion of the 
            West's forests and rangelands. The BLM manages over 245 
            million acres in the West, of which 155 million acres are 
            managed for livestock grazing.

  6.  Healthy forests and rangelands provide a number of important 
            ecosystem services and are a vital component of western 
            ecosystems. In addition to providing food, fuel and fiber, 
            forests and rangelands clean the air, filter water 
            supplies, control floods and erosion, sustain biodiversity 
            and genetic resources, and provide opportunities for 
            recreation, education, and cultural enrichment. Properly 
            managed forests and rangelands can sequester greenhouse 
            gases.

  7.  National Forests and Rangelands are economic drivers in western 
            states. These public lands serve as critical economic 
            engines and support local economic activities including 
            grazing, wood products, mining, and recreation.

  8.  Public and private forest managers require forest products 
            infrastructure to achieve community vitality and land 
            management goals, including ecological restoration 
            objectives and healthy and resilient forests.

  9.  Invasive species have damaged many of the forests and rangelands 
            throughout the West and continue to be a threat to the 
            West's working landscapes. Plant pests, such as the emerald 
            ash borer, can cause significant environmental, economic, 
            and human health impacts to western forests by destroying 
            urban, suburban, and wildland canopy covers and imperiling 
            the species that depend upon them. Invasive annual grasses, 
            such as cheatgrass, medusahead and ventenata, pose a major 
            threat to western rangelands by increasing the risk of 
            wildfire, outcompeting native grasses, and diminishing soil 
            and water quality. Invasive species management is an 
            essential component of effective forest, rangeland and 
            wildfire management.

  10. In recent decades, the number, severity and overall size of 
            wildfires has increased across much of the U.S. In that 
            time, wildfire seasons have become longer and more intense. 
            In areas that once experienced a 4 month fire season, fire 
            seasons may now last 6 to 8 months. Many longstanding 
            practices of the western wildland fire service, including 
            reliance on ``1039 seasonal'' and permanent subject to 
            furlough staff, were developed in an era with shorter, less 
            intense fire seasons.

  11. The USFS operates five regional research stations that work on a 
            range of biological, physical and social science fields to 
            promote sustainable management of the nation's forests and 
            rangelands.

  12. States have a particular interest in improving the active 
            management of Federal forest lands. State governments have 
            trust authority over water, wildlife and forest resources, 
            along with primary authority and expertise to protect 
            community health and safety. Poorly managed forests can 
            have significant and broad impacts on the landscapes and 
            communities of the West, including negative impacts to air 
            quality and public health, degradation of rivers and 
            streams and associated water quality (including drinking 
            water), reduced forage for domestic livestock, wildlife 
            diseases, impaired habitats and water for wildlife and 
            fish, and the loss of forest products and associated jobs.

  13. Relative to decades past and other forest landowners, forest 
            managers today operate under a constrained decision space 
            as they work to address contemporary issues such as climate 
            change, invasive pests and diseases, habitat diversity, 
            fuel build-ups and fire risk, fish passage barriers, 
            unmaintained roads, and legacy impacts. Adding to this 
            challenge are concerns about the economic and social 
            vitality of rural communities that experience effects from 
            reduced timber supply and compromised forest health. 
            Displaced workers, declines in school enrollment, aging 
            demographics, property loss, business closures, and revenue 
            effects due to wildfire and high unemployment are not 
            uncommon to these communities.

  14. Due to the current USFS funding model, many of the legacy roads 
            and water crossing structures are not being maintained, 
            leading to washouts, mass wasting, and sedimentation of 
            salmonid spawning habitat. Many culverts and bridges 
            installed over the past few decades do not meet current 
            fish passage criteria and are past their design life and 
            now failing. This lack of maintenance has resulted in a 
            significant increase in the number of fish passage 
            barriers, which is limiting fish access to important 
            spawning and rearing habitat.

  15. States are managers as well, and many western states own 
            extensive public land holdings that require forest products 
            infrastructure to achieve community vitality and land 
            management goals, including ecological restoration 
            objectives and healthy and resilient forests.

  16. The USFS business model has historically been based on a 
            combination of Federal appropriations that were 
            supplemented with revenue from resource sales and fees. 
            Until the early 1990s, the USFS was a net contributor to 
            the Federal treasury. Over the past 20 years, timber sales 
            have dramatically declined.

  17. In addition, the last decade has seen several large, very 
            expensive wildfires, which have increased USFS wildfire 
            suppression costs from 13 percent of the agency's FY 1991 
            budget to nearly 50 percent over the last several fiscal 
            years. Consequently, under the current agency budgeting 
            framework, forest management, hazardous fuels reduction, 
            habitat improvement, road maintenance, road abandonment, 
            fish passage barrier removals, and outdoor recreation 
            programs have been negatively affected across National 
            Forests and DOI lands.

  18. An April 2015 USFS study, the ``Collaborative Forest Landscape 
            Restoration Program 5 Year Report, FY 2010-2014,'' found 
            that the past century of wildfire suppression and legacy 
            management practices have contributed to forests being 
            overstocked and primed for larger and more intense blazes, 
            and that changes in land use and increasing social 
            pressures make it difficult for the agency to let fire play 
            its natural role of clearing the forest understory in 
            certain forest types. Active forest management has 
            historically played a pivotal role in the growth and 
            mortality cycle of forests to manage fuel loading, which in 
            turn can reduce fire-fighting costs and improve habitat 
            resilience. Today, the USFS estimates that roughly 
            90,625\2\ miles--an area larger than Utah--is at high or 
            very high risk of severe wildfire and in need of treatment.

  19. Insect infestation and disease have damaged many of the forests 
            throughout the West. Severe drought conditions that are 
            affecting western states, particularly California, have 
            only exacerbated insect infestations and tree mortality. 
            The effects go well beyond fire risk, and timber and fiber 
            production are negatively affected, threatening the 
            viability of the surviving forest product infrastructure. 
            The significant decline in forest health has also created 
            serious threats and challenges to watershed integrity, 
            wildlife and fisheries habitats, recreational uses, 
            businesses and tourism. All of these impacts present 
            substantial challenges for forest-dependent communities 
            across the West.

  20. The dire forest conditions, unmet management needs, and the 
            failure to provide lasting protections for some landscapes 
            have brought diverse stakeholders together to find 
            solutions. Community collaboration on forest health 
            projects is robust in numerous places across the West, 
            forging broad agreements among diverse stakeholders on 
            projects that encompass fuels reduction, fiber production, 
            habitat restoration, long-term protection for critical 
            areas, and other community objectives. It is not uncommon 
            to find mill owners, hunters and anglers, loggers, small 
            business owners, conservationists, and local elected 
            leaders working together around the table.

  21. Collaborative planning and project implementation across National 
            Forests and state and private forest lands on a larger 
            scale allows for more diverse interests to address their 
            particular needs for a landscape or a watershed. Taking a 
            broad look at a landscape for planning purposes minimizes 
            the challenges associated with managing lands for the 
            benefit of a particular species or to address a specific 
            need. Well-planned projects that are strategically placed 
            across a landscape can result in a higher level of benefits 
            than those that are more randomly or opportunistically 
            placed. Processes associated with planning and implementing 
            a project have become so time consuming and expensive for 
            National Forests in particular that a disincentive often 
            exists for their managers to proceed with management 
            actions that are needed to attain desired ecological, 
            social, and economic objectives.

  22. The full benefits of collaborative efforts have not been realized 
            on the land. Working constructively with collaborators 
            requires resources to be productive and the Federal 
            agencies often lack the necessary staff and funding.

  23. Even when collaborative forest health projects enjoy broad 
            support from diverse stakeholders and the agencies, 
            administrative objections and litigation remain a too 
            frequent outcome. One result is that community 
            collaborative efforts become fatigued, and future 
            opportunities are lost. Another outcome is that USFS 
            restoration projects often go through exhaustive, time-
            consuming analysis, driving up costs and preventing the 
            agency from scaling up management to meet the scope of the 
            problem.

  24. Today, the costs associated with planning and implementing a 
            management project on National Forest lands are 
            significantly more than those of the private sector. This 
            cost, along with the time associated with drafting, 
            analyzing, incorporating public involvement, and responding 
            to appeals and/or litigation at the project level, lead 
            many Federal managers to focus their limited staff, funds 
            and time on projects with the least likelihood to be 
            challenged. This approach does not adequately address the 
            larger socioeconomic and ecological needs of our National 
            Forests and dependent communities.

  25. Rangeland livestock operations were established decades ago, with 
            many operations using forage on private, state and Federal 
            lands. These family-based operations are important 
            contributors to the customs, cultures and rural economies 
            of the West.

  26. These operations also maintain open spaces and important habitat 
            conditions (e.g., year-round water sources) benefiting 
            wildlife and recreation. Water rights, which are granted by 
            the states for livestock grazing, will not benefit other 
            uses if the agricultural operation ceases to maintain the 
            beneficial use.

  27. Ranching operations that are responsibly managed provide 
            valuable, active management of public lands including 
            responsible grazing, maintenance of fences and other 
            infrastructure, managing fuel loads, engaging in wildland 
            fire monitoring and suppression, and cooperative management 
            of noxious and invasive weeds.

  28. Federal land management agencies' actions in recent years have 
            resulted in reductions or removal of domestic livestock 
            from Federal lands.

  29. The USFS and BLM have permanently closed, left vacant without 
            reissuing a grazing permit, and converted into forage 
            reserves or ``grass banks'' some grazing allotments in 
            recent years. In many instances, the allotments are 
            technically available based upon forage availability, but 
            permits are not issued for reasons including unmaintained 
            rangeland improvements and uncompleted National 
            Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation by USFS or 
            BLM.

  30. The USFS and BLM continue to receive pressure to close domestic 
            sheep grazing allotments due to concerns about disease in 
            bighorn sheep.

  31. Restrictions and closures can have negative economic impacts on 
            ranchers and ranch dependent communities. Ranchers who have 
            used the same Federal grazing allotments for generations 
            may be abruptly forced to find new forage for their 
            livestock when allotments are restricted or closed.

  32. Restrictions and temporary closures, when implemented to mitigate 
            natural events like drought, wildfires and wildlife 
            impacts, should be factored into ongoing, regular reviews 
            and renewals of individual livestock allotments, individual 
            livestock operators' use of the allotments or the total 
            amount of grazing allotments available for ranchers.

  33. Inconsistent interpretation of operational policies across the 
            West by local and regional Federal land managers compounds 
            difficulties in managing livestock grazing on public lands. 
            For example, Federal policy on acceptable types of 
            supplemental feed, feed placement, and watering of 
            livestock is interpreted without regard for localized 
            rangeland conditions or the economics of local ranching 
            operations. Failure to adapt policies to local conditions 
            affects the ability of livestock grazing permittees to 
            properly manage their livestock herds while achieving 
            permit standards, goals, and objectives.

  34. USDA launched a Shared Stewardship Strategy in 2018 to work 
            collaboratively with states to set priorities and co-manage 
            risk across broad landscapes. Through the strategy, USDA 
            coordinates with states to set priorities and increase the 
            scope and scale of critical forest treatments that support 
            communities and improve forest conditions. To date, 
            fourteen Western states have entered into individual Shared 
            Stewardship agreements with USDA to identify landscape-
            scale priorities and build capacity to improve forest 
            conditions.

  35. In December 2018, the Western Governors' Association (WGA) and 
            USDA signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to 
            establish a framework to allow the USFS and WGA to work 
            collaboratively to accomplish mutual goals, further common 
            interests, and effectively respond to the increasing suite 
            of challenges facing western landscapes. Under this 
            agreement, WGA and USDA have pursued several collaborative 
            campaigns to improve the management and restoration of 
            western forests and rangelands.

  36. In 1908, when Congress created the NFS, it also passed the 
            National Forest Revenue Act, which directs the USFS to 
            share 25 percent of gross revenues with local governments. 
            Then in 1976, Congress passed ``Payments in Lieu of Taxes'' 
            (PILT) legislation providing Federal payments to local 
            governments regardless of gross revenues that result from 
            timber harvest and other forest management activities. 
            After revenues from the sale of timber dropped 
            substantially, Congress passed the Secure Rural Schools and 
            Self Determination Act (SRS) in 2000, allowing counties to 
            choose between a payment based on historical average and 
            the 25 percent revenue share. SRS has expired several 
            times, and PILT has been subject to funding uncertainty as 
            well.

  37. The 2014 Farm Bill provided the Forest Service with several new 
            tools to accelerate forest restoration. Among them were 
            Good Neighbor Authority (GNA), which allows USFS to enter 
            into agreements with state forestry agencies to implement 
            this critically important management work on National 
            Forests when USFS is unable to do the work alone. Since GNA 
            was first authorized, 32 states have initiated more than 
            130 GNA projects. In the 2018 Farm Bill, GNA authorities 
            were expanded to allow Tribes and counties to enter into 
            GNA agreements. The 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills also gave USFS 
            and BLM Stewardship Contracting Authority (SCA), which 
            allows communities, the private sector, and others to enter 
            into long-term contracts to meet land management 
            objectives. SCA allows forest products to be exchanged for 
            ecological restoration services, which may include thinning 
            and brush removal.

  38. In the Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act 
            of 2009 (FLAME Act), Congress directed DOI and USDA to 
            develop a national cohesive wildland fire management 
            strategy to comprehensively address wildland fire 
            management across all lands in the United States. The 
            National Strategy explores four broad challenges: (1) 
            managing vegetation and fuels; (2) protecting homes, 
            communities, and other values at risk; (3) managing human-
            caused ignitions; and (4) effectively and efficiently 
            responding to wildfire.

  39. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 contained a new 
            ``fire borrowing fix,'' a comprehensive remedy to budgeting 
            for wildfire costs at DOI and USFS. The fix provides a new 
            funding structure from Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 through FY 
            2027. Beginning in FY 2020, $2.25 billion of new budget 
            authority is available to USDA and the DOI. The budget 
            authority increases by $100 million each year, ending at 
            $2.95 billion in new budget authority by FY 2027. For the 
            duration of the 8 year fix, the fire suppression account 
            will be funded at the President's FY 2015 Budget request--
            $1.011 billion. If funding in the cap is used, the 
            Secretary of Agriculture must submit a report to Congress 
            documenting aspects of the fire season that led to the 
            expenditures.

  40. Several Federal programs assist state and local fire and land 
            managers in their efforts to manage western lands. Among 
            these are:

       State Fire Assistance (SFA): The SFA program assists 
            states and local fire 
              departments in responding to wildland fires and 
            conducting management 
              activities that mitigate fire risk on non-Federal lands. 
            The program also 
              helps train and equip state first responders, who are the 
            first to arrive at 
              a wildfire (on any land ownership) 80 percent of the 
            time. The program also 
              assists communities in risk assessments and completing 
            fire management 
              planning projects.

       Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) programs: The VFA 
            program provides sup-
              port to rural communities and is critical to ensuring 
            adequate capacity to 
              respond to wildfires, reducing the risk to communities, 
            people, homes and 
              property, and firefighters.

       Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grants (HMAGs), 
            administered through the 
              Federal Emergency Management Agency, provide funding for 
            eligible miti-
              gation measures that reduce disaster losses. These grants 
            include the 
              Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) 
            program, which 
              support states, local communities, Tribes and territories 
            as they undertake 
              hazard mitigation projects, reducing the risks they face 
            from disasters and 
              natural hazards.
B. Governors' Policy Statement
  1.  Western Governors support sound forest and rangeland management 
            policies that maintain and promote ecologic, economic, and 
            social balance and sustainability.

  2.  Western Governors support the creation of mechanisms to support 
            and enhance cross-boundary collaborative work. To this end, 
            Western Governors have established the Working Lands 
            Roundtable (WLR) as a platform for collaborative work on 
            cross-jurisdictional, cross-boundary natural resource 
            issues. The WLR allows Western Governors to draw on the 
            expertise of a wide range of resource management experts, 
            landowners, and conservation professionals to devise 
            strategies that enhance the resiliency of western working 
            landscapes and the communities they support.

  3.  Western Governors point to the WGA-USDA Shared Stewardship MOU as 
            an example of an effective framework to establish shared 
            state-Federal priorities for forest and rangeland 
            management, and encourage the development of similar MOUs 
            with other Executive Branch agencies for other areas of 
            natural resource management.

  4.  Effective forest and rangeland management is only possible 
            through collaboration between Federal, state, local, and 
            Tribal land management agencies. These agencies should 
            strive to find new ways to collaborate on forest and 
            rangeland management projects, as well as to explore ways 
            to improve state-Federal coordination on existing 
            management projects. State funds can be directed to 
            targeted Federal projects to augment capacity, expedite 
            project approvals and implementation, and add key state 
            project priorities (including socioeconomic elements) to 
            the Federal program of work. State and local governments, 
            municipalities, water utilities and corporate partners 
            should be encouraged to collaborate on, and co-invest in, 
            forest and rangeland restoration--including the support of 
            collaborative groups--across ownership boundaries in key 
            water supply source watersheds.

  5.  Federal, state, local, and Tribal land managers should work to 
            support effective collaboration on Federal projects and 
            all-lands initiatives. Federal agencies should look to 
            local communities as a source of strength, knowledge, and 
            support during the planning and implementation of forest 
            and rangeland management projects, and should be encouraged 
            to work with local communities while planning forest and 
            rangeland management projects.

  6.  Local fire protective associations play a critical role in 
            wildfire response and mitigation, and state and Federal 
            agencies should look for ways to further incorporate these 
            groups into regional wildfire dispatch and coordination 
            centers.

  7.  Western Governors support cost-share grants to local governments 
            and local and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to 
            enable their participation in Federal project planning and 
            implementation. Federal agencies should facilitate the 
            participation of local governments in Federal decision 
            making by dedicating staff to develop and provide technical 
            assistance and enhance communications across local, Tribal, 
            state and Federal partners. Congress and the Administration 
            should support critically important programs that enable 
            state and local wildfire protection, such as the SFA and 
            VFA programs, as well as the Emergency Management 
            Assistance Compact and the All Hazards National Mutual Aid 
            System. Western communities are encouraged to take 
            advantage of Federal pre-fire mitigation programs, such as 
            BRIC and HMAG. Federal agencies are encouraged to work with 
            western states to ensure that communities' access to these 
            grants is as efficient and streamlined as possible.

  8.  The USFS should continue to support states' efforts to operate 
            within the Shared Stewardship Strategy, and Federal 
            agencies should continue to provide support to states as 
            they implement projects undertaken as part of the Shared 
            Stewardship Strategy and state-level Shared Stewardship 
            agreements. Implementation of these projects could benefit 
            from enhanced governance and transparency around Federal 
            funding, as well as the use of block grants to states 
            through USFS State and Private Forestry for project 
            implementation. States are often the conveners of 
            collaborative interagency forest and rangeland management 
            efforts. Federal agencies should provide funding and 
            support to states for cost incurred during this convening 
            role.

  9.  It is important to retain citizens' rights to question 
            governmental decisions through administrative and legal 
            means. Western Governors believe there may be an 
            opportunity to further streamline appeals and litigation 
            associated with National Forest decision making in 
            association with other changes designed to incentivize 
            collaboration and provide more certainty as to outcomes.

  10. Effective forest and rangeland management requires a network of 
            forest and rangeland infrastructure to manage, maintain, 
            and restore western forests and rangelands. Federal and 
            state agencies should strive to find ways to support and 
            expand critical forest and rangeland management 
            infrastructure, including mills, biomass facilities, and 
            roads. Also critical is the workforce, including the rural 
            workforce, needed to support and operate forest and 
            rangeland management infrastructure.

  11. Western Governors support the expansion of stream restoration 
            projects in forest and rangelands, including repair or 
            removal of culverts and other barriers to fish passage. 
            Federal and state agencies should strive to find ways to 
            support and expand cost-effective means of supplying 
            restoration projects, such as with large woody material 
            from adjacent overstocked forests, which in turn supports 
            the rural workforce needed to implement large-scale 
            watershed and stream restoration efforts.

  12. A thriving wood-based product market is essential to support 
            critical forest management infrastructure. Western 
            Governors support the expansion of wood-based product 
            markets, and encourage USFS to develop and help fund new 
            technologies and wood-based markets for some non-
            traditional products. USDA's Forest Products Laboratory is 
            a hub for research and innovation. Supporting innovative 
            technologies, such as cross-laminated timber and biofuels 
            to replace diesel or jet fuel, would help bolster woody 
            biomass utilization. Western Governors encourage the 
            application of their knowledge and experience in a 
            practical way in the West so that some of the federally 
            funded infrastructure that develops from such efforts could 
            first be demonstrated on private lands. Federal land 
            managers should work to ensure that wood product producers 
            have increased certainty of supply, as well as a broader 
            suite of outlets, in addition to traditional sawmills and 
            existing biomass facilities. Governors should work with 
            USDA to explore mechanisms to expand low-interest loans in 
            the forest products and woody biomass sectors to help 
            develop rural businesses around sustainable industry. 
            States can also work with USFS and other Federal land 
            managers to establish more long-term stewardship agreements 
            to ensure a long-term feedstock supply.

  13. Authorities granted to the USFS in the 2018 Farm Bill, including 
            GNA and SCA, are powerful tools to boost forest and 
            rangeland management, promote collaboration, and limit the 
            effects of administrative objections and litigation. 
            Western Governors encourage Federal agencies to fully 
            implement the tools provided in the 2018 Farm Bill and 
            encourage all state and Federal land managers to continue 
            to expand the use of these tools in other areas of land 
            management. Federal agencies should expand the use of GNA 
            agreements and other 2018 Farm Bill tools to achieve all-
            lands restoration objectives across Federal, state, local 
            government and privately-owned lands. Federal agencies 
            should use GNA authority and program income to support 
            additional stewardship objectives such as invasive species 
            management and rangeland conifer encroachment. Where 
            programmatic agreements are already in place, Federal 
            agencies should use GNA agreements to address priority 
            restoration needs.

  14. Western Governors believe clear, coordinated and consistent 
            application of Federal vegetation management practices is 
            integral to maintaining the health of western forests, 
            preventing dangerous and damaging wildfires, and 
            maintaining grid reliability. The Governors support 
            effective and efficient cross-jurisdictional coordination 
            that enables utilities to undertake necessary vegetation 
            management actions on Federal transmission rights-of-way. 
            Effective implementation by BLM and USFS of the FY 2018 
            Consolidated Appropriations Act's sections related to 
            vegetation management, in consultation with states and 
            utilities, would make progress towards improving vegetation 
            management in the West. Special attention should be paid to 
            the law's direction to USFS to pair the Wildfire Hazard 
            Potential index and map with spatial data for use at the 
            community level, as well as its language encouraging USFS 
            and BLM to develop training programs on vegetation 
            management decisions relating to electrical transmission 
            and distribution systems. Electrical utilities and state 
            and Federal land managers should examine ways to further 
            utilize GNA and SCA to improve vegetation management in the 
            West.

  15. Western Governors believe it is possible to reform the USFS 
            business model in a manner that reduces project planning 
            costs, sources funds from non-Federal partners and 
            recognizes that the agency no longer generates large 
            revenues from commodity programs. Federal agencies can 
            accomplish this by:

       Striving to identify business practice barriers to 
            cross-boundary projects;

       Developing training on state and Federal contracting 
            procedures and 
              administration for all partners to improve implementation 
            of cross-bound-
              ary projects;

       Utilize Service First authorities, which allow multiple 
            agencies to partner 
              to share resources, procurement procedures and other 
            authorities;

       Streamlining and consolidating agency processes with 
            partners; and

       Establishing multi-agency pilot projects, which can 
            suggest models for sub-
              sequent formal agreements.

  16. Western Governors support efforts to improve the effectiveness of 
            NEPA in a forest and rangeland management context. Federal 
            agencies should engage with Governors and states in early, 
            meaningful, and substantive consultation throughout the 
            NEPA process. Western Governors support allowing Federal 
            agencies to analyze only the action and no-action 
            alternatives when a project is collaboratively developed, 
            unless a third alternative is proposed during scoping and 
            meets the purpose and need of the project. Western 
            Governors also support rewarding successful implementation 
            of collaborative projects through funding, retained-receipt 
            authority, or other capacity to pursue subsequent projects.

  17. State and Federal agencies should look to expand the use of 
            prescribed fire and should look for ways to reduce the 
            statutory and regulatory barriers to its expanded use on 
            western forests and rangelands. State and Federal air 
            quality specialists should work together to identify 
            reforms that reduce barriers to prescribed fire and reduce 
            overall health impacts from smoke, improve interagency use 
            of smoke management best practices, and examine liability 
            protection for fire managers and compensation for private 
            property owners negatively affected by escaped prescribed 
            burns. Land managers across the West should strive to 
            increase workforce capacity for prescribed fire activities, 
            as well as science-based vegetation management activities, 
            oversight and planning. State and Federal agencies should 
            work to identify ways to increase the cultural acceptance 
            of the use of prescribed fire in the West. Traditional 
            Native American cultural burning and Tribal practices are 
            an important part of forest management in the West and may 
            be incorporated more effectively into Federal and state 
            planning management processes.

  18. Western Governors support efforts to improve a broad range of 
            pre-fire mitigation practices. State and Federal agencies 
            should work to develop tools to support mechanical 
            hazardous fuels reduction, especially the removal of 
            underbrush and understory, which are economically unviable 
            in many instances. Expanding the use of spatially complex 
            restoration treatment would help create more resilient 
            forest through greater forest structural heterogeneity. 
            Thinning and spatially complex treatments both address 
            wildfire and post-fire erosion risks, but spatially complex 
            restoration also provides habitat and biodiversity benefits 
            that thinning does not. Invasive species, including 
            invasive annual grasses, can be one of the greatest drivers 
            of wildfire on western rangelands. Land managers should 
            work to further integrate invasive species data and 
            management practices into hazard fuels management and 
            planning.

  19. Efforts should be made by state, Federal, local, and Tribal 
            agencies to modernize the wildland fire service and adapt 
            it for the West's increasingly long and intense fire 
            seasons. Federal agencies should examine their reliance on 
            1039 seasonal staff, shift a higher percentage of wildland 
            fire staff from seasonal to permanent and permanent subject 
            to furlough positions, evaluate policies related to the use 
            of Administratively Determined emergency firefighters, and 
            authorize hazard pay for Federal firefighters performing 
            prescribed fire operations. Incident command teams are 
            valuable resources in the region, and efforts should be 
            made to ensure that these resources have adequate access to 
            training and preparedness activities and are, as necessary, 
            utilized for prescribed fires in a manner similar to 
            suppression fires.

  20. Western Governors support improvements to interagency 
            communication, fire response capability, and coordination, 
            including the sharing of firefighting resources. Fire 
            management activities should support fire prevention, rapid 
            response capabilities, full suppression strategies and 
            management of wildfire for resource benefits. Agencies and 
            stakeholders should continue to seek opportunities, 
            including revisions to forest plans, to enhance safety and 
            reduce costs in suppression decisions while protecting 
            communities. Incentives should be created for local 
            governments to take voluntary actions to support the 
            creation and expansion of fire-adapted and smoke-ready 
            communities and resilience, including the promotion of 
            education, fuels management projects and improved 
            integration of community wildfire protection plans with 
            land use decisions when compatible with local goals. 
            Additional analyses should be provided to help communities 
            evaluate the full costs of suppression associated with 
            development in the wildland urban interface.

  21. Western Governors support increased attention to the challenges 
            posed in post-wildfire landscapes and wildfire-affected 
            communities. Restoration of forests and rangelands is an 
            overlooked and underfunded aspect of land management 
            activity. Cross-boundary and cross-jurisdictional 
            collaboration is crucial to properly managing restoration 
            efforts. Western Governors also encourage better awareness 
            of post-wildfire restoration funding opportunities 
            available to wildfire-affected communities and more 
            sophisticated coordination of restoration activities to 
            achieve restoration objectives.

  22. The West's forests and rangelands are changing: historical fire 
            suppression patterns have altered the composition of 
            western forests, invasive species have moved across western 
            rangelands, and changing patterns of industry, recreation, 
            and land-ownership have shifted the way Westerners interact 
            with and manage forests and rangelands. Federal agencies, 
            including the USFS and BLM, must work to build agency 
            cultures that can adapt quickly and responsively to these 
            changes. Climate change can accelerate many of these 
            changes by increasing the frequency and severity of fire, 
            altering hydrologic patterns, and expanding the potential 
            range of invasive species, and can pose a threat to the 
            ecosystem services derived from forests and rangelands, 
            such as watersheds, recreation, ranching, and agriculture. 
            Federal agencies must be prepared to adapt to changing 
            patterns in revenue generation, increased need for 
            restoration activities, and a changing workforce. 
            Increasing the pace and scale of restoration work like 
            prescribed fire, fuels reduction, and active management can 
            help reduce the effects of climate change. Western 
            Governors support the creation and expansion of assistance 
            to landowners for carbon sequestration and conservation 
            activities on private forests and rangelands.

  23. Federal agencies need to ensure adequate monitoring, assessment, 
            and analysis of Federal forests and rangelands, including 
            data on wildlife, water, soil, and forage. Federal agencies 
            should strive to further improve the collection of 
            socioeconomic data related to forest and rangeland 
            management decisions, and to further incorporate that data 
            into management decisions. The Administration should 
            provide Federal funding to develop detailed state rangeland 
            action plans addressing invasive species, wildlife and fish 
            habitat, and water quality and quantity as a complement to 
            State Forest Plans. These rangeland plans should include 
            resource analyses of soil health, water, plants, animals 
            and productive capacities to inform management decision-
            making. The Administration should target funding from USFS, 
            BLM, the Natural Resources Conservation Service and state 
            sources to address cross-boundary management goals (and 
            support monitoring and assessment frameworks) in priority 
            areas. Projects using this targeted funding should be 
            consistent with State Forest Action Plans, wildlife action 
            plans, community wildfire protection plans, and projects in 
            other priority areas determined by Federal, state, local 
            and Tribal partners based on the best available science.

  24. Western Governors urge Congress and the Administration to support 
            the research needed for responsible and effective forest 
            and rangeland management in the West. Investments in 
            widespread spatial imaging and data analytics, LiDAR or 
            hyperspectral imaging, would improve predictive analytics 
            and planning tools for fire and forest health. Federal 
            agencies conducting research should also work to ensure 
            that public research projects are focused on research that 
            supports on the ground management needs. Western Governors 
            urge Congress and the Administration to support USFS 
            Research Stations, which play a key role in forest and 
            rangeland management in the West.

  25. The outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in 2020 posed a significant 
            challenge to those working to manage the West's forests and 
            rangelands, particularly wildland firefighters. State, 
            Federal, and local wildland fire managers should be 
            encouraged to learn from the pandemic response and, as 
            appropriate, implement effective new management principles 
            developed during that pandemic into permanent practice. 
            Efforts should be made to ensure that emergency response 
            personnel are prepared for similar situations in the 
            future, as well as other potential risks.

  26. Western Governors support the continued responsible use of 
            Federal lands for grazing and increased funding for grazing 
            management, monitoring, and permit condition compliance.

  27. We support sound, science-based management decisions for Federal 
            lands--including adaptive management--and believe these 
            decisions should be based upon flexible policies that take 
            into account local ecological conditions and state planning 
            decisions for fish and wildlife and other human needs.

  28. Federal and state land managers should identify opportunities to 
            improve flexibility and integration of grazing management 
            and targeted grazing as tools to achieve restoration and 
            land management goals, including fish and wildlife habitat 
            improvements, drought and wildfire mitigation and 
            resilience, water quality and watershed health, soil health 
            management, promotion of perennial plant health, and 
            control of invasive species such as cheatgrass. They should 
            also promote grazing allotment flexibility on Federal 
            lands, within USFS and BLM permitting systems and across 
            ownership boundaries, to respond to changing rangeland 
            conditions and environmental considerations.

  29. Livestock grazing on Federal lands is compatible with recreation 
            and wildlife management and fulfills the multiple use and 
            sustained yield mission of both the USFS and BLM. Policies, 
            analyses, or planning decisions that lead to closing 
            allotments must be based on science, documented threats and 
            causal factors consistent with state policies and programs 
            as well as Federal multiple use missions.

  30. Decisions to reduce or suspend grazing should only be made 
            assisted by an appropriate quantitative assessment of long- 
            and short-term trends in rangeland conditions on specific 
            allotments, risk of spread of invasive weeds, diseases to 
            wildlife, or other documented fish or wildlife impacts. If, 
            after consultation with the state, the Federal agency 
            decides to reduce, suspend, close, or modify an allotment 
            due to documented harmful wildlife impacts, an alternative 
            allotment, properly authorized pursuant to NEPA, if a 
            suitable alternative allotment exists, must be made 
            available to the displaced operator prior to adjustment of 
            the original allotment. In order to fully implement this 
            policy, the BLM and USFS must have alternative allotments 
            properly authorized under relevant planning documents. This 
            ensures that suspensions or modification of grazing permits 
            will not result in a net loss of Animal Unit Months and 
            that appropriate alternative allotments are available.

  31. Grazing permit renewal decisions should be assisted by current 
            site-specific, quantitative data. Federal agencies should 
            engage in meaningful consultation, coordination and 
            cooperation with livestock grazing permittees, state and 
            local governments, Tribes, and stakeholders, prior to 
            initiation and throughout the entire permit renewal 
            process.

  32. Federal land management agencies' decisions to reduce or close 
            allotments should only be based upon completion of a full 
            and complete administrative review and analysis, including 
            a complete review under the provisions of NEPA. The 
            decision process must include opportunities for states, 
            livestock grazing permittees and other stakeholders to 
            provide input. Allotments should not be closed due to a 
            pending NEPA review without allowing authorized use of the 
            allotment pending a final decision, or the use of an 
            equivalent amount of forage at reasonably equivalent cost 
            to compliant operators.

  33. Federal rangeland specialists should have an understanding of the 
            economics and management of ranching operations dependent 
            upon Federal lands, and should receive the necessary 
            training to comprehensively monitor rangelands, conduct 
            objective analysis, and write sound environmental 
            documents.

  34. Clear directives and accountability throughout all levels of the 
            USFS and BLM should be required so that interpretation and 
            implementation is practical and predictable from office to 
            office and individual to individual, and informed by an 
            understanding of localized rangeland and ecological 
            conditions, and economic health of ranch operations.

  35. Federal land management agencies must give interested state 
            agencies an opportunity to fully participate in or provide 
            input to grazing permit actions--prior to their 
            initiation--including: generalized review of livestock 
            operations on Federal lands; any assessment of grazing 
            conditions as part of a Federal planning process; review of 
            past compliance of the operator with grazing allotment 
            conditions; and individual allotment reviews. Grazing 
            permit decisions should not be finalized until after this 
            opportunity for meaningful consultation with the states, 
            local governments, and the affected permittees.

  36. Governors possess primary decision-making authority for 
            management of state resources. States also have knowledge 
            and experience that are necessary for the development of 
            effective plans. Accordingly, it is essential that 
            Governors have a substantive role in Federal agencies' 
            planning processes and an opportunity to review new, 
            revised, or amended Federal land management plans for 
            consistency with existing state plans. Federal agencies 
            should:

       Provide Governors with sufficient time for a full and 
            complete state review, 
              especially when Federal plans affect multiple planning 
            areas or resources.

       Align the review of multiple plans affecting the same 
            resource, especially 
              for threatened or endangered species that have vast 
            western ranges.

       Afford Governors the discretion to determine which state 
            plans should be 
              reviewed against Federal plans for consistency, including 
            State Wildlife Ac-
              tion Plans, conservation district plans, county plans, 
            and multi-state agree-
              ments.

       Maintain Governors' right to appeal any rejection of 
            recommendations re-
              sulting from a Governor's consistency review.

       Create a database of Federal forest and rangeland 
            management projects, 
              available to states and other collaborators, that 
            includes planned, current, 
              and past projects.

  37. The Federal Government should honor its historic agreements with 
            states and counties in the West to compensate them for 
            state and local impacts associated with Federal land use 
            and federally owned, nontaxable lands within their borders, 
            such as the PILT and SRS programs.

  38. The Federal Government should be a responsible landowner and 
            neighbor and should work diligently to improve the health 
            of Federal lands in the West. Federal actions or failures 
            to act on Federal lands affect adjacent state and 
            privately-owned lands, as well as state-managed natural 
            resources.

  39. Congress and Federal agencies should provide opportunities for 
            expanded cooperation, particularly where states are working 
            to help their Federal partners to improve management of 
            Federal lands through the contribution of state expertise 
            and resources.

  40. Western Governors support efforts to examine rural communities' 
            relationships with natural resources, such as forests, 
            rangelands, croplands, wildlife, and source water, as well 
            as the important role that rural communities play in the 
            management of these resources. Policy makers in the West 
            should be encouraged to identify barriers to growth and 
            sustainability in western communities, including a lack of 
            restoration infrastructure, disaster mitigation challenges, 
            dependence upon a single natural resource, and issues 
            related to local capacity, expertise, and funding, and 
            identify best practices to help rural communities overcome 
            these barriers.
C. Governors' Management Directive
  1.  The Governors direct WGA staff to work with Congressional 
            committees of jurisdiction, the Executive Branch, and other 
            entities, where appropriate, to achieve the objectives of 
            this resolution.

  2.  Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to consult with the 
            Staff Advisory Council regarding its efforts to realize the 
            objectives of this resolution and to keep the Governors 
            apprised of its progress in this regard.

          This resolution will expire in December 2023. Western 
        Governors enact new policy resolutions and amend existing 
        resolutions on a semiannual basis. Please consult http://
        www.westgov.org/resolutions for the most current copy of a 
        resolution and a list of all current WGA policy resolutions.
                              attachment 2
Policy Resolution 2023-01, Working Lands, Working Communities
A. Background
  1.  Western states face a wide array of social, economic, and 
            environmental challenges. More frequent and intense 
            wildfires threaten rural and urban communities, invasive 
            annual grasses are encroaching on America's grasslands, and 
            persistent drought threatens the quality and quantity of 
            water supplies.

  2.  The fabric of western communities is tightly interwoven with the 
            working lands and ecosystems which they steward and rely 
            upon for cultural, social and economic health. Rural 
            communities have an interdependent relationship with 
            natural resources and working lands: healthy communities 
            can support effective land management practices and the 
            responsible use of their natural resources for multiple 
            purposes.

  3.  Western lands typically involve a complex array of ownerships, 
            including Federal, state, local and Tribal governments and 
            private landowners. Addressing land management challenges 
            at scale requires the involvement of all these different 
            land owners and a shared understanding of and participation 
            in management processes, establishment of goals, and 
            collaboratively work toward positive land management 
            outcomes.

  4.  Land management involves a continuum of activities that respond 
            to the natural cycle of western landscapes. Mitigation 
            activity, which includes manual and mechanical treatments, 
            prescribed fire, and invasive species treatments, is 
            focused on creating healthy landscapes that provide quality 
            habitat for fish and wildlife, maintain water quantity and 
            quality attributes, and are resilient to wildfire. When a 
            wildfire occurs, suppression activity attempts to limit 
            environmental damage and protect human infrastructure and 
            homes. After a wildfire, restoration activity, including 
            salvage operations pursuant to a forest management plan, 
            attempts to alleviate the wildfire's effect on the 
            environment, prevent post-fire soil erosion and flooding, 
            and reestablish landscapes.

  5.  Many western communities are experiencing devastating effects 
            from ongoing drought, including increased feed prices, the 
            need to reduce or eliminate existing agricultural products 
            and livestock due to lack of available water, leading some 
            producers to consider eliminating agricultural production 
            entirely. Additional effects are being felt by local 
            economies reliant on the recreational economies developed 
            around large reservoirs in western states. Drought also 
            contributes to the increased threat of more frequent and 
            intense wildfire and degrades habitat quality for wildlife 
            and fish. Without substantial assistance, rural economies 
            in western states that rely heavily on agriculture and 
            natural resources will take years to recover from the 
            effects of this devastating drought.

  6.  The drought is having downstream effects on food security and 
            fiber and energy production, both regionally and 
            nationally. Those effects include low or dried up 
            reservoirs, increased algal blooms, a decrease in 
            hydroelectric power and the potential of shuttering 
            hydroelectric dams because of low water levels. Some 
            drought-affected communities are already facing drinking 
            water supply constraints, a situation that could become 
            much more widespread with prolonged drought.

  7.  Data is a fundamental building block for land management 
            planning, decision making, and accountability for outcomes. 
            At present, data may be held by single agencies and may not 
            be in a format accessible to other agencies, states, or the 
            public.

  8.  Local capacity, including technical expertise, workforce, capital 
            and manufacturing, affect the ability to conduct 
            responsible management on surrounding lands and promote 
            community adaptability and sustainability. Local land use 
            collaboratives and coordinating capacity can have a 
            significant role in land management processes.

  9.  Many western communities have suffered from the ``boom and bust'' 
            economic cycles. Sustainable economic opportunities in 
            multiple areas--from land management, extractive 
            industries, and agriculture to recreation and tourism are 
            critical to enabling communities that are healthy and 
            economically resilient.

  10. Economic priorities may shift in rural communities in response to 
            market needs. Markets for products that support active 
            management (such mass timber and woody biomass) may be 
            underdeveloped, and environmental conditions may be altered 
            by wildfire or other natural disasters. Adapting to 
            changing economic, environmental, or technological 
            conditions requires the development and use of tools and 
            innovations for rural communities, including the expansion 
            of markets to support management objectives.

  11. Capacity constraints across multiple disciplines, from 
            environmental processes and compliance to responsibly 
            conducting land management activities requires a commitment 
            to training, equipping and sustaining a workforce capable 
            of achieving land management objectives. An aging workforce 
            is also a concern in many rural communities. As workers in 
            rural communities retire, additional workforce is needed to 
            maintain the economic viability of these communities.
B. Governors' Policy Statement
Collaboration
Planning
  1.  The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management 
            (BLM) should consider developing regional and cross-
            boundary collaboratives to facilitate cooperation on 
            ecosystem-level land management challenges. The National 
            Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provides an opportunity for 
            communities to engage in difficult conversations on land 
            use, but communities should be engaged earlier, and at a 
            broader level, to ensure full benefit of the NEPA process.

  2.  Local collaboratives can be too near-sighted, focusing solely on 
            wildfire mitigation. Land management agencies should 
            consider educational opportunities for collaborative 
            members on broader ecosystem effects of forest and 
            rangeland management (e.g., wildlife habitat, water 
            quality, invasives), which would assist communities seeking 
            to improve overall ecosystem health and resilience.

  3.  Planning tools like the Shared Wildfire Risk Mitigation system 
            (SWRM) are invaluable in helping communities understand 
            management needs and the effects of land use and wildfire 
            mitigation decisions. These tools help alleviate capacity 
            issues for communities and promote better decision making. 
            Western Governors encourage Federal land managers to make 
            SWRM and similar tools widely available to communities and 
            decisionmakers.

  4.  Land managers should integrate small private landowners into 
            ecosystem planning processes and responsible land 
            management practices. Private industry has looked at U.S. 
            Department of Agriculture (USDA) climate smart credits as a 
            mechanism to spur engagement, but additional methods of 
            gaining small landowner participation and engagement should 
            be explored, including greater participation in local 
            collaboratives, increased partnerships with Soil and Water 
            Conservation Districts, and involvement in shared 
            stewardship agreement processes.

  5.  County governments have a positive influence on land use planning 
            and resource management through the development of county 
            plans. These county plans can be helpful in crafting state 
            plans, ensuring local views are taken into consideration, 
            and can be persuasive when collaborating with Federal 
            agencies on land use planning. State and Federal land 
            managers should take steps to ensure that these county 
            resource management and other plans are integrated into 
            their planning processes.

  6.  Land management agencies should be focused on outcome-based, 
            rather than acre-based, metrics for success. While simply 
            counting acres can provide useful information, agencies 
            should examine how other performance metrics, including the 
            shift of funding over time from suppression activity to 
            mitigation and restoration activities, provides tangible 
            evidence of the value of land management activities.

  7.  Land managers should prioritize post-wildfire water quality 
            effects in mitigation planning and execution. Post-fire 
            flooding can have a dramatic effect on infrastructure and 
            water quality in downstream communities, and is the cause 
            of many avoidable post-fire deaths in affected areas. 
            Integrating water supply and quality considerations into 
            mitigation work could significantly reduce the cost of 
            post-fire restoration in burned areas.

  8.  Western Governors encourage land managers to incorporate the 
            effects of drought into land use planning and community 
            sustainability efforts. Drought, among other effects, has 
            impacts on wildfire threat, wildlife and fish habitat, 
            agricultural and ranching productivity, recreational 
            opportunity, power generation, and drinking water 
            availability, all of which threaten community 
            sustainability. Mitigating these effects, to the extent 
            feasible, is critical to ensuring the future vitality of 
            many western communities.

  9.  Land managers should evaluate the use of area-wide plans under 
            NEPA; this would allow planning for cross-boundary 
            landscapes under a single NEPA process and produce multiple 
            resource benefits.

  10. States, Tribes and counties can use Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) 
            to facilitate management activities on Federal lands. 
            Federal agencies should take steps to ensure that various 
            GNA projects integrate with each other to achieve desired 
            outcomes and provide opportunities to increase 
            collaboration and increase cross-boundary cooperation with 
            these governmental units.

  11. Congress should codify and direct funding to the Joint Chiefs 
            Landscape Restoration Program to facilitate continued 
            partnership and investment between USFS and the Natural 
            Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to support 
            restoration projects where Federal and private land 
            ownership and management goals intersect.

  12. Western Governors recognize that prescribed fire is an important 
            tool for fuels reduction and ecosystem resilience, but is 
            underused in the West. Prescribed fire has overall air 
            quality benefits, eliminates low- or no-value woody biomass 
            in forest and rangeland environments, and contributes to 
            soil health. Educating the public and creating social 
            license to use the tool is critical; however, recent events 
            have also shown that land managers must put greater effort 
            into coordinating prescribed fire with other mitigation 
            activities, updating models, tools and practices for safe 
            burning, and putting a greater emphasis on post-burn 
            preparation and monitoring to reduce the potential for 
            escaped burns.

  13. In many cases, different state, territorial and Federal agencies 
            manage the planning and authorization for prescribed fire, 
            which can add delays to implementing prescribed burns, or 
            cause managers to entirely miss opportunities to use the 
            tool. Land managers should consider greater collaboration 
            for prescribed fire activities to increase deployment. 
            Traditional Native American cultural burning and Tribal 
            practices are an important part of forest management in the 
            West and may be incorporated more effectively into Federal 
            and state planning management processes. Additionally, land 
            managers should have adequate liability insurance to 
            protect individuals and landowners affected by escaped 
            prescribed fires.
Funding and Capacity
  14. Financial support for local collaboratives is important to 
            achieving community engagement, subject matter expertise, 
            and long-term success. Federal agencies should examine 
            structures to improve local collaborative capacity.

  15. The transition from active wildfire suppression activity to post-
            wildfire community responsibilities can be abrupt at the 
            community level. Wildfire affected communities, especially 
            in resource-constrained communities, need subject matter 
            expertise on post-fire restoration and risk management to 
            guide them through recovery. Federal agencies should 
            collaborate with states to designate and train post-fire 
            coordinators to manage post-fire recovery. Establishing a 
            post-fire master agreement would also improve the processes 
            involving incident management and post-fire handoff to 
            local authorities.

  16. In many cases, wildfire affected communities must provide a 
            funding match to access restoration programs and resources. 
            Match requirements negatively affect resource-constrained 
            communities' ability to access funds, especially in 
            underserved communities that often lack the personnel or 
            other capacity to administer these programs due to small 
            annual operating budgets. This contributes to inadequate 
            post-fire response, reduced landscape resilience, and 
            suboptimal ecosystem recovery. Federal agencies should 
            examine funding match requirements and consider reducing or 
            eliminating these requirements when the public benefit 
            outweighs the cost of the funding match.

  17. Congress should extend the authorization for states to retain 
            revenues from timber sales under GNA, which may then be 
            used to ``carry out authorized restoration services on 
            Federal land under the good neighbor agreement;'' and if 
            excess funds are available, ``to carry out authorized 
            restoration services on Federal land within the state under 
            other good neighbor agreements.'' This authority is 
            statutorily scheduled to terminate on October 1, 2023. 
            Congress should also consider extending retained receipt 
            authority to county governments and Tribes.

  18. Increase flexibility in the GNA program: (1) on road 
            construction/reconstruction; (2) for recreation 
            improvements and forest and rangeland restoration planning 
            and implementation activities; and (3) to support better 
            prioritization of GNA projects across larger geographies.
Agency Cultural Issues
  19. Forestry and land management agencies, including the Department 
            of the Interior (DOI) and USDA, have separated fire 
            management from land management. Western Governors 
            recognize there needs to be integration of these functions 
            to ensure mitigation efforts produce wildfire-resilient 
            landscapes and communities, suppression activities orient 
            toward restoration needs, and restoration work addresses 
            community needs and future landscape resilience.

  20. Federal land management agencies should consider investing in 
            facilitation capacity and training for agency personnel and 
            partner organizations involved with collaboratives and 
            wildfire-affected communities. Facilitation skills are an 
            essential element in helping resolve conflict and achieving 
            consensus on mitigation and restoration decisions.
Data
  21. The Federal Government and states should consider collaboratively 
            developing interagency data hubs to reduce overall 
            operating costs, increase the shareability of data (i.e., 
            establishing data standards and formats that are useable 
            and sharable), and facilitate public access to the data.

  22. States, Territories and Federal agencies should consider 
            establishing coordinators for data collection, transfer and 
            assimilation to ensure that data is shareable and useable 
            between platforms. Western Governors encourage agencies to 
            consider standardizing and simplifying data collection 
            protocols for Federal agencies, states, counties and Tribes 
            which include robust landowner privacy standards and 
            protections.

  23. Federal agencies should incorporate socioeconomic data into the 
            decision-making process. In places with complex economic 
            foundations (agriculture, mining, oil and gas), an economic 
            assessment is key to quantifying and understanding the 
            implications of land use decisions.

  24. Western Governors recognize that many local governments do not 
            have the capacity or budget to keep datasets current. 
            Federal agencies should consider implementing a model or 
            framework to share resources to address these capacity and 
            budget issues.

  25. Federal, state, and territorial land managers should collaborate 
            on developing integrated methods and processes for visitor 
            data collection and analysis. This would help track where 
            visitors are recreating, the activities they are 
            participating in, and assist in placing tourism 
            infrastructure and addressing other tourism infrastructure-
            related needs. It would also provide important data to 
            inform needs to shift visitation from overused to less-
            trafficked areas, sustain tourism if Federal land closures 
            are needed, and improve recreational experiences for 
            visitors.
Infrastructure
  26. Forest and rangeland management access and infrastructure in much 
            of the West is woefully inadequate to address land 
            management needs. Access is critical to perform management 
            activities for wildfire mitigation, habitat improvement, 
            water quality improvements, invasive species management, 
            and post-fire restoration. Western Governors encourage 
            Federal agencies to ensure that appropriate access and 
            infrastructure, in appropriate locations, exists to achieve 
            land management objectives. Repairing and replacing range 
            improvements, particularly fencing, in a timely manner 
            should be a priority for Federal land management agencies 
            in wildfire-affected areas.

  27. Western Governors encourage Federal agencies to integrate 
            infrastructure needs into planning processes and provide 
            long-term, sustainable economic opportunities for 
            communities. Federal agencies should also recognize that 
            regulatory certainty is an important element of enabling 
            infrastructure deployment. Consistency in permitting and 
            policy is key to attracting and maintaining infrastructure 
            investments.

  28. Federal agencies should consider integration of permitting 
            processes to establish single point permitting for its 
            permittees. Streamlining permitting processes would provide 
            benefits for land managers, project implementers, and the 
            tourism and recreation industry.

  29. Federal agencies should evaluate the use of regional recreation 
            partnerships to address infrastructure and repair needs for 
            tourism-related infrastructure. A GIS tool to identify 
            trails and assess visitation effects would assist land 
            managers in addressing trail degradation and the need for 
            new trail development.

  30. Western Governors recognize that additional nursery capacity is 
            needed to address post-wildfire restoration needs. Federal 
            agencies should examine the need for market incentives to 
            encourage sustainable nursery markets and facilitate the 
            development of additional nursery capacity.

  31. Western Governors recognize that harvest cost is a significant 
            issue for producers. Economies of scale have affected the 
            packing industry, and in many cases small packing houses 
            are booked months in advance due to lack of capacity. USDA 
            should consider how communities can develop additional 
            small packing capacity to ensure access for producers and 
            improve national food security.

  32. The supply chain for basic land management equipment, such as 
            vehicles and chainsaws, is integral to implementing 
            management plans authorized by the Infrastructure 
            Investment and Jobs Act. The Federal Government should take 
            steps to address equipment shortages as part of its 
            implementation of the IIJA.
Markets
  33. Predictable, long-term supply assurances are needed to attract 
            private infrastructure investment and improve overall 
            forest and rangeland management capacity. DOI and USDA 
            should consider how its annual timber harvesting targets 
            can ensure adequate long-term supply. USFS and BLM should 
            modify GNA guidance to allow 20 year contracts, versus the 
            current limit of 10 years, to provide additional supply 
            stability.

  34. Congress should expand GNA and Stewardship Contracting Authority 
            (SCA) to other Federal land managers, which is currently 
            limited to USFS and BLM. Land and facilities owned by the 
            National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
            Bureau of Reclamation, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
            would also benefit from projects implemented under GNA and 
            SCA.

  35. Many mitigation projects have high treatment costs with low or 
            little opportunity to recoup those costs. This requires a 
            broader view of investments in wildfire mitigation. Western 
            Governors encourage Federal agencies to include cost 
            metrics such as the avoided cost of uncharacteristic 
            wildfire, smoke effects on populations, and benefits to 
            water supply systems and downstream communities when 
            assessing the merits of mitigation projects.

  36. Different Federal agencies use different strategies to achieve 
            land management outcomes. For example, USFS strategy 
            primarily relies on a ``payments for product'' model, while 
            NRCS primarily uses a ``payments for practice'' strategy to 
            achieve land management objectives. Agencies should 
            consider lessons learned from these different strategies 
            and how different payment models could be used to improve 
            management outcomes.

  37. Given the importance of the tourism economy, statewide strategic 
            tourism plans, developed in collaboration with Federal 
            agencies, can improve coordination between tourism 
            operators on Federal lands.

  38. A significant barrier to producer investments in soil health and 
            restoration is the cost of equipment to test new practices. 
            Federal agencies should consider incentives to purchase 
            equipment, participate in new processes, or expand markets 
            to encourage deploying new conservation practices.

  39. Federal agencies should examine the grazing effects different 
            ruminants have on ecosystems and encourage the targeted 
            deployment of ruminants (i.e., cattle, sheep and goats) to 
            achieve specific land management outcomes.

  40. Federal agencies should continue to explore strategies for the 
            use of low or no value biomass, removal of which is needed 
            to achieve wildfire mitigation needs, including market 
            incentives for these materials. Biomass power at utility 
            scale may present such an opportunity, but there is market 
            failure to represent the true value of a bioenergy supply 
            chain. Western Governors encourage DOI, USDA and the 
            Department of Energy to continue research and development 
            efforts to find viable markets for low and no value 
            biomass.

  41. Western Governors recognize that market interventions can affect 
            land management decision making. Market incentives for one 
            desired outcome may negatively affect overall ecosystem 
            health and resilience. Federal agencies should take steps 
            to eliminate counterproductive ecosystem outcomes that may 
            arise from different market incentives. Agencies should 
            consider holistic approaches that incorporate ecosystem 
            health, wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, water 
            supply and quality and other factors.

  42. Federal agencies should expand opportunities for existing USDA 
            Rural Development, U.S. Economic Development Administration 
            (EDA) and Small Business Administration (SBA) programs and 
            financing to support wood product business development and 
            infrastructure.

  43. USFS Research and Development, State and Private Forestry, and 
            National Forest System should work collaboratively to 
            support existing and emerging wood products technologies, 
            including the work of the National Forest Products 
            Laboratory, with the goal of expanding markets to maximize 
            restoration activity. Research, development and deployment 
            should be focused on commercially ready technologies with 
            high potential to contribute to current and emerging 
            restoration objectives. These efforts should be aligned 
            with the work of industry partners, and actively pursue 
            public-private partnerships to advance market growth, with 
            the goal of providing sustainable economic development 
            opportunities for rural communities.

  44. Western Governors encourage Federal agencies to identify 
            initiatives to support markets that can achieve restoration 
            goals and foster near-term opportunities for economic 
            development in rural communities. These opportunities 
            include advancing the use of mass timber in building 
            construction through research and demonstration projects. 
            Expanding utilization of low-value woody biomass for 
            thermal, electric and liquid-fuel energy should also be a 
            priority. Rural electric cooperatives, public utilities, 
            community facility managers, and other partners should 
            contribute to the research, testing and deployment of new 
            and modified heat and electric generation projects and 
            liquid-fuel facilities from hazardous fuels reduction, 
            conifer removal and other forest and rangeland restoration 
            efforts. Finally, agencies should explore opportunities to 
            support new and diversified rangeland products, markets and 
            processing infrastructure, such as mobile meat processing, 
            renewable energy production, local and regional food hubs, 
            and recreation.

  45. Congress should pass legislation to promote forest and rangeland 
            product markets and technologies, and expand funding for 
            the Community Wood Energy Program. Western Governors 
            support the use of program funds to create and incentivize 
            state, Federal and Tribal partnerships in support of these 
            objectives.
Workforce Development
  46. Capacity is a significant need in resource-constrained 
            communities. These communities are often not able to invest 
            in basic processes, including writing grant applications 
            and conducting environmental analyses, needed to address 
            landscape needs. Federal agencies should take steps to 
            assist resource-constrained communities in developing these 
            needed capacities.

  47. Western Governors recognize that housing costs impede the ability 
            to attract and retain workers in many rural areas. Forest 
            and rangeland management work is inherently place based, 
            making local housing affordability a high priority to 
            retain a workforce capable of planning and executing land 
            management activities. Housing and recruitment are 
            significantly greater challenges in rural communities 
            compared to urban areas. The Federal Government should 
            focus attention on housing needs and assist communities 
            seeking to attract and retain workforce.

  48. Federal capacity to complete NEPA processes in a timely manner is 
            a significant bottleneck to project implementation on 
            Federal lands. Western Governors recognize that the 
            workforce responsible for NEPA processes is specialized and 
            encourages Federal land management agencies to bolster this 
            capacity to ensure that management projects are implemented 
            on a timely basis.

  49. Federal agencies should consider how interagency shared positions 
            can create regulatory efficiencies and promote greater 
            collaboration between Federal, state, territorial, local 
            and Tribal land managers pursuant to traditional 
            understandings of jurisdictions.

  50. Apprenticeship and internship programs can reduce costs 
            associated with building expertise within a workforce. 
            Western Governors recognize that 4 year college degree 
            programs are not needed for many forest and rangeland 
            careers and that a focus on trades training provides better 
            workforce outcomes. The Federal Government and employers 
            should consider work experience and other non-traditional 
            credentials in hiring and promotions and avoid credential 
            creep to ensure adequate capacity for land management 
            project implementation.

  51. Western Governors recognize that Federal agencies are struggling 
            with recruitment and retention of a qualified workforce. 
            Workforce that could be used for mitigation or restoration 
            work may be deployed to fight wildland fire for a 
            significant portion of the year. Within the wildland 
            firefighting workforce, increased wildfire activity, low 
            salaries, and mental fatigue contribute to workforce loss. 
            Congress and Federal agencies have taken steps to address 
            these challenges, but the Federal Government should 
            consider additional steps to recruit and retain an 
            effective land management and wildland firefighting 
            workforce.

  52. Federal agencies should collaborate with states to explore the 
            expanded use of youth, veterans, inmate crews and 
            conservation corps to provide cost-effective capacity to 
            support forest and rangeland restoration work across 
            various land ownerships. Congress should enact legislation, 
            such as the 21st Century Conservation Service Corps Act, to 
            make it easier for young people and veterans to complete 
            quality, cost-effective maintenance and improvement 
            projects on public and Tribal lands and waters across the 
            country. The Federal Government, states, and territories 
            should also examine standards on hiring persons with 
            criminal backgrounds to promote employment opportunities 
            for qualified applicants that present minimal risk for 
            future criminal behavior.
C. Governors' Management Directive
  1.  The Governors direct WGA staff to work with Congressional 
            committees of jurisdiction, the Executive Branch, and other 
            entities, where appropriate, to achieve the objectives of 
            this resolution.

  2.  Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to consult with the 
            Staff Advisory Council regarding its efforts to realize the 
            objectives of this resolution and to keep the Governors 
            apprised of its progress in this regard.

          This resolution will expire in July 2025. Western Governors 
        enact new policy resolutions and amend existing resolutions on 
        a semiannual basis. Please consult http://www.westgov.org/
        resolutions for the most current copy of a resolution and a 
        list of all current WGA policy resolutions.

                                  [all]