U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

26–076 WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 115–263 

COLLABORATIVE INITIATIVES: RESTORING WATERSHEDS AND LARGE LANDSCAPES ACROSS 

BOUNDARIES THROUGH STATE AND FEDERAL 

PARTNERSHIPS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 21, 2017 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING

MIKE LEE, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO 

JAMES E. RISCH 

JEFF FLAKE 

STEVE DAINES 

CORY GARDNER 

LAMAR ALEXANDER 

JOHN HOEVEN 

BILL CASSIDY 

LUTHER STRANGE 

RON WYDEN 

DEBBIE STABENOW 

AL FRANKEN 

JOE MANCHIN III 

MARTIN HEINRICH 

MAZIE K. HIRONO 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO 

COLIN HAYES, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

LUCY MURFITT, Senior Counsel and Public Lands & Natural Resources Policy Director 

LANE DICKSON, Professional Staff Member 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

MELANIE STANSBURY, Democratic Professional Staff Member 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

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

WITNESSES 

Bail, Kristin, Assistant Director for Resources and Planning, Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Department of the Interior ................................................. 2 

Weldon, Leslie, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service .................................................................................. 11 

Moore, Virgil, Director, State of Idaho Department of Fish and Game, on 

behalf of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies ................................... 18 

Thompson, Tyler, Director, Utah’s Watershed Restoration Initiative, Utah 

Department of Natural Resources ...................................................................... 29 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

Bail, Kristin: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 2 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 5 

Kruse, Dylan: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 48 

Lee, Hon. Mike: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Moore, Virgil: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 18 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 20 

Thompson, Tyler: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 29 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 31 

Weldon, Leslie: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 11 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 13 

(1) 

COLLABORATIVE INITIATIVES: RESTORING 

WATERSHEDS AND LARGE LANDSCAPES 

ACROSS BOUNDARIES THROUGH STATE 

AND FEDERAL PARTNERSHIPS 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in 

Room SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Lee, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH 

Senator LEE [presiding]. The hearing of the Senate Energy and 

Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and 

Mining, will come to order. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to discuss the success and benefits of collaborative initiatives to restore watersheds and large 

landscapes. Millions of acres of watersheds and critical landscapes 

across the country are deteriorating. Invasive species, catastrophic 

wildfires, and inadequate management have badly damaged these 

lands and continue to threaten the health of the same lands. These 

problems are not exclusive to federal lands, of course. Many state 

and private lands face similar threats. Healthy watersheds are essential to our environment. They are necessary for our economy 

and to our well-being. They support everything from water quality 

and wildlife habitat to livestock grazing, timber harvesting, and 

recreational opportunities for the American people. 

We have to find innovative ways to restore these lands to ensure 

that they can support these vital functions in the future. The haphazard way these lands are managed has proved to be one of the 

biggest obstacles to restoring them. Too often federal, state, and 

local lands are managed independently of one another, as if they 

were in separate universes, with little or no coordination between 

neighboring land managers. This patchwork of management strategies tends to breed confusion, it tends to create a certain amount 

of distrust, and it tends to produce less than ideal and even bad 

outcomes with the land itself. 

Thankfully, that is not the end of the story. In some parts of the 

country, land managers have cooperated with one another to solve 

these problems, and the results of that kind of cooperation are 
2 

quite promising. One solution they have come up with is ‘‘collaborative initiatives.’’ These initiatives bring together federal, state, 

and tribal land managers, as well as private landowners, to cooperate on landscape restoration projects across ownership boundaries 

so that people do not remain in these independent silos focusing 

only on that which is immediately within their stewardship. 

A good example of such an initiative can be found in my own 

state, in the State of Utah. In response to the deteriorating condition of watersheds on public and private lands, federal and state 

officials came together and formed the Watershed Restoration Initiative, or WRI. For over 12 years, the WRI has brought federal, 

state, and private stakeholders together to resolve some of the 

state’s most vexing land management issues and restore essential 

watersheds. To date, WRI has completed more than 1,600 projects 

and restored more than 1.3 million acres of land. Another 287 

projects spanning 280,000 acres are currently underway. Like so 

much else in politics, WRI is successful because it relies on locallydriven, bottom-up solutions. WRI’s organizational structure empowers regional teams and not far-off bureaucracy to identify and 

prioritize projects. 

Collaborative initiatives are true state-based solutions to the 

problems we face. When we let states take the lead, we avoid the 

partisan bickering and red tape that can bog down projects by the 

Federal Government. Today we are going to hear about collaborative initiatives that are transforming land management across 

the Western United States. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, who play important roles in these successful initiatives. 

I want to quickly introduce each of you and then we will proceed 

to your testimony. 

First, we are going to hear from Ms. Kristin Bail, Assistant Director for Resources and Planning for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Next we will have Ms. Leslie Weldon, Deputy Chief 

for the U.S. Forest Service. Then we will hear from Mr. Virgil 

Moore, Director of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. He is 

also testifying on behalf of the Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies. Finally, we will hear from Mr. Tyler Thompson, Watershed Program Director at the Utah Department of Natural Resources. Tyler and the Watershed Restoration Initiative are doing 

outstanding work on the ground in Utah. 

Thank you all for being here to testify today, and thank you for 

the great benefit that you confer to federal, state and private lands 

throughout our country and in the parts of the country where you 

work. 

With that, the Committee recognizes Ms. Bail. 

STATEMENT OF KRISTIN BAIL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR RESOURCES AND PLANNING, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. BAIL. Thank you and good morning, Chairman Lee. 

As you said, I am Kristin Bail. I am the BLM’s Assistant Director for Resources and Planning. And thank you for the opportunity 

to discuss the Bureau of Land Management’s efforts to advance the 

on-the-ground landscape restoration and conservation of natural 

and cultural resources through collaborative partnerships. 
3 

The BLM is extremely proud to partner with states, local governments, counties, tribes and other organizations. The relationships 

we build with our partners are crucial for our ability to successfully 

manage the vast public lands and the diverse uses they offer. They 

help us solve management challenges across jurisdictional boundaries, leverage resources, create new economic opportunities for 

local businesses and enhance the enjoyment and use of America’s 

public lands. 

Nationally, the BLM manages more than 245 million acres of 

surface land and 700 million acres of subsurface mineral estate on 

behalf of the American people. The Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) sets forth the BLM’s multiple use mission directing that public lands be managed for a variety of uses such as 

conventional and renewable energy development, livestock grazing, 

conservation, mining, watershed protection, hunting, fishing, and 

other forms of recreation and it requires that various resources be 

managed on a sustained-yield basis. 

BLM-managed public lands encompass an incredible number of 

unique ecosystems from the high Mesas, deep canyons and spectacular arches of Utah’s San Rafael Swell to the glacier-carved gorges 

of Oregon’s high desert. These lands provide forage for livestock, 

habitat for big game and other species of fish and wildlife, harvestable forest products and rewarding opportunities for all types of 

outdoor recreation. 

The BLM strongly supports locally-driven partnership efforts to 

ensure that these valuable public land resources are preserved for 

the benefit of present and future generations. The BLM depends on 

countless partnerships nationwide to manage public lands and they 

are instrumental to our efforts to increase public access, facilitate 

outdoor recreation, control invasive species, reduce wildfire risk, 

and enhance conservation. 

My written statement discusses 15 examples, but right now I 

would like to highlight two that have been particularly successful 

at restoring large landscapes—the Utah Watershed Restoration 

Initiative, also known as WRI, and Restore New Mexico. 

WRI is a partnership between the BLM, the State of Utah, other 

federal agencies, hunting and fishing groups, private landowners 

and many others that aims to improve water quality and quantity, 

reduce catastrophic wildfire risk, develop sustainable agriculture 

and improve forage and wildlife habitat. The BLM, State of Utah, 

and other partners have provided millions of dollars in funding to 

accomplish on-the-ground work for projects that provide the most 

value to local communities. Since 2006, more than 1,800 projects 

have been completed or are currently in progress which have treated about 1.6 million acres and restored over 400 miles of streams 

to proper functioning condition. Notable recent projects include removal of pinyon pine and juniper, the installation of guzzler systems and hazardous fuel reduction to improve habitat and ranges 

for greater sage grouse, mule deer, elk and pronghorn. 

Like WRI, Restore New Mexico is a partnership between the 

BLM, the State of New Mexico, ranchers, industry and other local 

organizations to restore more than three million acres of grasslands, woodlands and riparian areas across the state that had been 

degraded by invasive species and woodland encroachment. This ini-
4 

tiative also includes the reclamation of oil and gas legacy roads, 

pads and other infrastructure that is no longer needed which improves habitat for sensitive species of wildlife and plants. 

The BLM has a track record of developing robust partnerships to 

make land management more effective and responsive to the needs 

of local communities while maintaining our federal trust resource 

responsibilities. That said, we know there are ways to further improve our work. The BLM looks forward to working with the Subcommittee and Congress on this important issue. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony and I 

would be glad to answer questions that you may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bail follows:] 
5 

Statement of 

Kristin Bail 

Assistant Director for Resources and Planning 

Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining 

Hearing on "Collaborative Initiatives: Restoring Watersheds and Large Landscapes Across 

Boundaries Through State and Federal Partnerships" 

June 21,2017 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) efforts to 

advance on-the-ground landscape restoration and conservation of natural and cultural resources 

through collaborative partnerships. The BLM is proud to partner with States, local governments, 

counties, Tribes, and other organizations, and we are committed to advancing the important 

public access and recreation goals outlined by Secretary Zinke in Secretarial Order 3347, 

Conservation Steward1·hip and Outdoor Recreation. The relationships we build with our 

partners are critical to our ability to successfully manage the vast public lands and the diverse 

uses they offer. Frequent communication and close collaboration are hallmarks of the BLM's 

work across the West. This approach is essential for the Federal government to be a good 

neighbor to and steward for local communities and is critically important for solving 

management challenges across jurisdictional boundaries, leveraging resources, creating new 

economic opportunities for local businesses, and enhancing the enjoyment and use of America's 

public lands. 

Background 

The BLM manages over 245 million acres of surface land and 700 million acres of subsurface 

mineral estate on behalf of the American people. Managing this vast portfolio is a tremendous 

honor for the employees of the BLM, and our work depends on close cooperative relationships 

with partners and local communities. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 

sets forth the BLM's multiple-use mission, directing that public lands be managed for a variety 

of uses, such as conventional and renewable energy development, livestock grazing, 

conservation, mining, watershed protection, hunting, fishing, and other forms of recreation, and 

requires that various resources be managed on a sustained yield basis. Because of this, Federal 

lands support the production of goods and services that create jobs and promote economic 

development in communities across the nation. 

BLM partnerships are truly cross-cutting, occurring at all levels of the agency and in key 

program areas, such as recreation, fire management, and conservation offish, wildlife, and 

cultural resources. The BLM' s great array of partners from national organizations, Tribes, 

community associations, and volunteers to schools and educational institutions, friends groups, 

youth corps organizations, businesses, and other government agencies provide invaluable 

support, helping the agency deliver opportunities to engage the public in conserving, enjoying, 
6 

and appropriately using the unique resources and services provided by ELM-managed lands. 

These partnerships have been particularly effective in efforts to restore ecosystems and 

landscapes, control the spread of invasive species, reduce wildfire risk, and enhance conservation 

and recreational opportunities. 

Ecosystem & Landscape Restoration 

ELM-managed public lands encompass an incredible number of unique ecosystems, from the 

sagebrush-steppe rangelands of the Great Basin region to the high mesas, deep canyons, and 

spectacular arches and spires of Utah's San Rafael Swell to the glacier carved gorges of 

Oregon's high desert. These lands provide forage for livestock, habitat for threatened and 

endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants, harvestable forest products, subsistence use of 

fish and game in Alaska, and rewarding opportunities for all types of outdoor recreation. To 

ensure that these valuable ecological goods and services are preserved for the benefit of present 

and future generations, the BLM strongly supports locally-driven ecosystem restoration efforts 

and regularly partners with State and local governments, other Federal agencies, and academic 

institutions to improve the resilience of human communities living near and working on ELMmanaged lands. 

For example, the Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative (WRI) is a partnership between the 

BLM, the State of Utah, the U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service, the U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS), hunting and fishing groups, private landowners, oil and gas companies, private 

foundations, and public land grazers that aims to improve the health of high priority watersheds. 

The WRI is a bottom-up initiative, where locally developed regional teams plan, rank, and assist 

in the implementation of projects to improve water quality and quantity, reduce catastrophic 

wildfire risk, develop sustainable agriculture, and improve forage and wildlife habitat. The 

BLM, State of Utah, and other partners have provided millions of dollars in funding to 

accomplish on-the-ground work for projects that provide the most value to local communities. 

Since 2006, over 1,800 projects have been completed or are currently in progress, which have 

treated approximately 1.6 million acres and restored over 400 miles of streams to proper 

functioning condition. Notable recent projects include removal of pinyon pine and juniper, 

installation of a poly tank guzzler system, and hazardous fuel reduction to improve Greater SageGrouse, mule deer, elk, and pronghorn habitat and ranges. In addition, the BLM has worked 

with the State of New Mexico, ranchers, industry, and other local partners on the successful 

"Restore New Mexico" initiative, which has restored over 3 million acres of grasslands, 

woodlands, and riparian areas across the State that had been degraded by invasive species and 

woodland encroachment. This initiative also includes the reclamation of oil and gas legacy 

roads, pads, and other infrastructure that is no longer needed, which improves habitat for 

sensitive species of wildlife and plants. 

In addition to our work to improve watersheds and landscapes in Utah and New Mexico, the 

BLM has also established partnerships to enhance fish and wildlife habitat. For example, the 

BLM, in coordination with Arizona's Lake Havasu Fishery Partnership, has helped treat more 

than 800 acres to improve habitat for fish and install shoreline fishing facilities. As a result of 

these efforts, Lake Havasu has become a premier fishing Jake, contributing significantly the local 

economy. Similarly, the BLM has partnered with the Nevada Departments of Wildlife and 

Conservation and Natural Resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the 

2 
7 

Newmont Mining Corporation on a sagebrush ecosystem conservation program for managing 

over 1.5 million acres of habitat A first of its kind in the United States for its scope and scale, 

the agreement establishes a framework governing Newmont' s management of sagebrush habitat 

As with the agency's work in Arizona and Nevada, the BLM has partnered with the Wyoming 

Game and Fish and Agriculture Departments, the Southwest Wyoming County Commissions, the 

Southwest Wyoming Conservation Districts, and a number of other Federal agencies and 

organizations as part of the Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative (WLCI). The WLCI is 

a long-term, science-based collaborative effort to assess and enhance aquatic and terrestrial 

habitats at a landscape scale in southwest Wyoming, while facilitating responsible development 

in some of the country's most abundant oil and natural gas reserves. 

The BLM's partnerships have also resulted in improvements to subsistence resources and 

wildlife conservation. In Alaska, the BLM has worked with the State Department ofFish and 

Game to monitor Chinook salmon abundance in the Unalakleet River as well as caribou, moose, 

Dall sheep, and other big game species in multiple populations throughout the State. The BLM 

contributes funding to the State and also participates in its surveys. This partnership ensures that 

consistent data collection methods are used to produce accurate demographic infonnation, which 

is then used to make well-informed decisions on subsistence, sport hunting, and habitat 

management In Wyoming, the BLM has partnered with State and local governments, other 

Federal agencies, and a large number of nonprofit organizations and foundations as part of the 

Wyoming Migration Initiative, which facilitates the study of big game migration across 

landscapes. The Red Desert to Hoback migration assessment, being conducted as part of this 

initiative, aims to identify potential risks to migrating mule deer and to provide a roadmap for 

stakeholders to improve management and conservation efforts. 

Invasive Species Management & Wildfire Risk Reduction 

Invasive species reduce rangeland productivity, increase the risk of catastrophic wildfire, 

threaten native plant and wildlife populations and their habitats, and negatively impact 

recreational opportunities on public lands. The BLM is committed to preventing the introduction 

and spread of invasive species that threaten local and State economies, the environment, and in 

some cases human health directly. Many invasive plants, insects, and other types of animals, 

pathogens, and parasites are already well-established within the United States, and noxious 

weeds like cheatgrass and salt cedar exist on over 79 million acres ofBLM-managed lands, 

requiring significant effort to controL Changes in land uses and prolonged drought are rendering 

some habitats, including some of the best-protected, most valuable, and remote natural areas 

more susceptible to biological invasion. For example, the Great Basin's sagebrush-steppe 

ecosystem is one of the most imperiled in the United States due in part to the presence of 

invasive species such as cheatgrass and medusahead. Together, invasive species and the effects 

of prolonged drought are creating conditions that are leading to larger, more frequent, and more 

intense rangeland fires across the Great Basin. 

Cheatgrass is a non-native annual grass that dries early in the summer and remains highly 

flammable throughout the fire season, creating dangerous fuel-loading conditions on the ground. 

A wind-driven rangeland fire in cheatgrass can easily burn thousands of acres in an hour, 

destroying homes, livelihoods, and habitat If! eft unchecked, cheatgrass can invade sagebrush 

communities after rangeland fires, creating conditions for more frequent, intense fires in the 

3 
8 

future. Native plant and animal communities are not well-adapted to these novel fire regimes 

and can suffer significant declines in numbers and cover. This in turn allows for more cheatgrass 

growth in following years. For these reasons, this "fire-and-cheatgrass cycle" is a particularly 

difficult challenge for land managers. 

Healthy rangelands are more resistant to certain invasive species. Therefore, working to 

maintain rangeland plant community integrity and when necessary stabilizing and restoring 

areas after fire is critical to successfully breaking the cheatgrass-fire cycle. The increasing 

frequency and intensity of rangeland fires and the conversion of sagebrush to invasive annual 

grasses pose major threats to native biodiversity, ranchers, Tribes, local communities, outdoor 

recreationists, energy developers, and others who depend on these lands and resources to sustain 

their livelihoods and quality oflife. 

The formidable challenges posed by invasive species must be addressed for the BLM and our 

partners to effectively protect and preserve natural, cultural, historic, and tribal resources; 

safeguard traditional uses of public lands; facilitate new economic opportunities; and build 

ecological resilience of plant and animal communities. Just as with our efforts to restore 

landscapes, the BLM actively partners with State and Federal agencies, nonprofit organizations, 

industry, and academic institutions to reduce the spread of invasive species through prevention, 

early detection and rapid response, and control. 

With the limited success of traditional mechanical and chemical efforts to treat annual grass 

invasion over the past 50 years, the BLM is working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 

Agricultural Research Service, USFWS, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and other partners 

on a new tool to manage these invasive grasses a naturally occurring weed-suppressing 

bacteria, Pseudomonasjluorescens to be used as a host-specific biopesticide. Field trials were 

initiated in 2015 at the Mid-Columbia National Wildlife Refuge Complex in Washington State to 

test the bacteria's efficacy. 

In addition, after the 2013 Yarnell Hill Fire in Arizona, the BLM partnered with Arizona State 

Forestry and the USFS to provide funding to local fire districts for hazardous fuel reduction 

projects, including vegetation removal and thinning. This significant regional partnership has 

funded 16 projects in 13 communities throughout Arizona, treating over 1,300 acres. Similarly, 

the BLM has partnered with the State of Montana, private landowners, and other Federal 

agencies as part of the Blackfoot Challenge. This partnership aims to enhance, conserve, and 

protect the natural resources and rural lifestyles of the Blackfoot River Valley through cost-share 

initiatives, including reduction of hazardous fuels around residences and conflicts between 

humans and livestock with carnivores like grizzly bears and wolves. The BLM has also 

partnered with State, Federal, and local stakeholders as part of the Harney County Wildfire 

Collaborative (HCWC) in Oregon. The HCWC aims to reach consensus on specific, achievable, 

tangible, and measurable steps to reduce the potential for and impact of mega-fires in Harney 

County, including coordinating wildfire suppression activities, preventative measures to reduce 

the size of wildland fires on public and private lands, and rehabilitation actions. 

Concurrent with the BLM's work with partners on wildfire risk reduction, the BLM has 

collaborated with a wide variety of State and local groups on a number of general invasive 

4 
9 

species management projects. For example, the BLM in Colorado has worked with The Nature 

Conservancy, the San Miguel County Weed Board, and other interested stakeholders since 2001 

to remove over 30 miles of salt cedar and restore native vegetation along the San Miguel River. 

Finally, the BLM has partnered with State and local governments, other Federal agencies, Tribes, 

individuals, and other organizations in 75 Cooperative Weed Management Areas (CWMAs) 

across the West CWMAs help interested parties coordinate efforts and share expertise for 

managing invasive species in a defined area. By addressing invasive species in this manner, the 

BLM is able to leverage limited resources to counter the impacts of invasive species across the 

landscape. 

Conservation & Recreation 

As part of its multiple use mission, the BLM, in conjunction with strong local partnerships, 

conserves, protects, and restores nationally significant landscapes that are recognized for their 

outstanding cultural, ecological, and scientific values. These landscapes are part of an active, 

vibrant landscape where people live, work, and explore. They offer exceptional opportunities for 

recreation, solitude, wildlife viewing, history exploration, scientific research, and a wide range of 

traditional uses. 

In Colorado, for example, the BLM has partnered with the State Department of Parks and 

Wildlife to manage the land, plants, and wildlife of the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Area 

within the Mcinnis Canyons National Conservation Area. This partnership has resulted in 

management strategies within the wilderness aimed at reducing the threat of wildfire to bighorn 

sheep habitat and vegetation composition. Likewise, the BLM in California partnered with the 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation in 2016 on the acquisition of approximately 350 acres ofland 

for the Cache Creek Natural Area. The acquisition of this land secured and improved year-round 

public access and provided multiple recreational opportunities for camping, hunting, angling, and 

birdwatching, while protecting important cultural, natural resources, and wildlife habitat for the 

rare Tule elk California's Tule elk herds have recovered from the brink of extinction, and Cache 

Creek now has several trophy bull tags available each year One of the tags is reserved for an 

"apprentice hunt" for youth hunters. 

The BLM also manages public lands to facilitate outdoor recreation. Visitors to these lands 

enjoy countless types of outdoor adventure- participating in activities as widely varied as 

camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, boating, whitewater rafting, hang-gliding, 

off-highway vehicle driving, mountain biking, birding and wildlife viewing, photography, 

climbing, all types of winter sports, and visiting natural and cultural heritage sites. Recreational 

experiences are especially important in the growing West, where more than half ofBLMmanaged public lands are within 25 miles of an urban area. Lands used for recreational activities 

contribute significantly to local economies. As Secretary Zinke has said, "Outdoor recreation is 

about both our heritage and our economy." Lands managed by the BLM and other Department 

bureaus hosted an estimated 473 million recreation visitors during 2016. These visits alone 

contributed an estimated $50 billion to the economy and supported nearly 426,000 jobs 

nationwide. 

5 
10 

As with other uses, outdoor recreation on ELM-managed public lands is enhanced by 

collaborative partnerships with local organizations. For example, the BLM in Nevada has 

partnered with the State Division of State Parks, the City of Caliente, Lincoln County, the 

International Mountain Bicycling Association, and the American Conservation Experience to 

develop and build the Lincoln County Partners Multi-Purpose Non-Motorized Trail System, a 

network of multi-purpose, non-motorized recreational trails suitable for hiking and mountain 

biking. Phase 1 of the project, now underway, includes constructing 40 miles of interconnected 

trails 27 miles on public lands and l3 miles on state park lands. The City of Caliente will build 

an additional five miles of trails and a bike park on city property. In addition to this work, the 

BLM in Idaho has partnered with the City of Boise, Ada County, the State Department ofFish 

and Game, and the USFS to manage recreational, open space, and natural resources in the 

foothills immediately adjacent to Boise. This partnership, known as "Ridge to Rivers," manages 

and maintains more than 200 miles of motorized and non-motorized trails (46 miles of trail on 

ELM-managed public lands) and 22 developed !railheads within the 15,000-acre Boise Front 

Special Recreation Management Area. The partners all contribute funds to meet these needs, 

with the City of Boise serving as the lead agency. The BLM contributes resources to maintain 

and improve existing trails, replace aging equipment, and assist with implementing local 

planning efforts for the trail system. 

Conclusion 

The BLM has a track record of developing robust partnerships with State and county 

governments, area Tribes, the public, and other stakeholders to make land management more 

effective and responsive to the needs of local communities while maintaining our Federal trust 

resource responsibilities. That said, we know there are ways to further improve our work. The 

BLM looks forward to working with the Subcommittee and Congress on this important issue. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony, and I would be glad to answer any 

questions you may have. 

6 
11 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Ms. Bail. 

Ms. Weldon. 

STATEMENT OF LESLIE WELDON, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL 

FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

FOREST SERVICE 

Ms. WELDON. Thank you very much and good morning Chairman 

Lee. We really appreciate being part of the conversation this morning. 

We also want to share with you the work the Forest Service is 

doing across boundaries through others with collaborative initiatives to deliver the mission for the Forest Service. Collaborative initiatives have helped the Forest Service to deepen relationships that 

are improving management of watersheds and large landscapes 

and delivering goods and services to the public. 

Collaboration has emerged as a primary principle for delivering 

the work of the Forest Service, and we achieve our most successful 

outcomes when we do it with and through others across boundaries 

and with an eye toward sharing commitment and stewardship. 

This is a principle that is shared well with states, local governments, industry, NGO’s, private landowners and interested citizens 

who are also at the table. Tribes also play a key role in shared 

stewardship as well under the Tribal Trust and Treaty Rights Responsibilities held by the Federal Government. 

Collaborative outcomes are the foundation for the 2012 Planning 

Rule and for outcomes described in the Farm bill, Cohesive 

Wildland Fire Management Strategy, Secure Rural Schools (SRS), 

the Wyden Amendment and other legislation. 

Collaborative initiatives are also helping to leverage funds and 

expertise, boost innovation and speed up the timelines for getting 

projects done. They’re a model for interagency coordination across 

states, federal and private lands and help us to do more critical 

work on our nation’s forests, deep in shared stewardship with the 

communities we serve and can lead to more durable solutions to 

complex issues. 

Today I’d just like to highlight a few examples for that, including 

the Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative, which we’ll hear a lot 

about today, the Forest and Focus Initiative in Montana and our 

partnership with water providers in Colorado. I’ll also highlight 

some efforts under the Good Neighbor Authority and some other 

collaborative projects we have. 

So as Kristin stated with the Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative, the Forest Service is also a part of that. And according to our 

local forest supervisors, the over $500,000 that the Forest Service 

has invested so far on an annual basis, is returning seven times 

over in collaborative projects across the state on the ground with 

our forest there. We hope the Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative can be a model in other states for how we can work across federal, state and private land ownerships and harness the power of 

partnerships on crucial restoration projects. 

Montana Governor Steve Bullock’s unique forest restoration initiative, called Forest and Focus, is designed to address forest restoration and industry retention, collaboration and partnerships and 

restoration of tribal, state and forest lands. It is investing millions 
12 

of dollars in projects across boundaries to accomplish priority 

projects including hiring state Forest Service liaisons—positions 

that focus on forest restoration activities across landscapes. We’re 

grateful for Governor Bullock for the investment he’s made of 

$2 million from the Montana Fire Suppression Account to engage 

directly with the Forest Service on projects, and he’s currently investing in 25 projects statewide which will result in supporting 

mills and sustaining 3,000 jobs. 

In Colorado, the Forest Service has partnered with municipal 

water utilities, conservation districts, businesses and state partners 

to support forest and watershed restoration. Collectively, our water 

provider partners have contributed over $28 million which has 

been matched by $31 million in Forest Service funding for vegetation and watershed restoration treatments, all of which are serving 

the water users through restoring watersheds that have been affected by wildfire and preventing wildfire risk against communities. 

Under the Good Neighbor Authority, the Forest Service is working with states to treat more acres across our forested landscapes 

and grasslands. This authority increases our capacity by allowing 

us to work with states in identifying shared priorities for forest 

management and to access state agency expertise to accomplish 

restoration work. We have currently executed 83 Good Neighbor 

agreements in 29 states with more work coming online. 

In conclusion, we are most successful when we work together 

with state agencies and other organizations to focus on highestpriority needs to benefit land in surrounding communities. We’re 

honored to be stewards of the nation’s forest and seek to do this 

best through working with and through others and across boundaries as the best way to ensure we’re of service to the needs for citizens and for those landscapes. 

I look forward to answering any questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Weldon follows:] 
13 

TESTIMONY of LESLIE WELDON 

DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

FOREST SERVICE 

BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS AND MINING 

on COLLABORATIVE INITIATIVES 

JUNE 20, 2017 

Collaborative Initiatives: Restoring watersheds and large landscapes across boundaries 

through State and Federal partnerships 

Chainnan Lee, Ranking Member Wyden, and members of the Subcommittee, I express my 

thanks to you for the opportunity to speak today about the work the Forest Service is undertaking 

with our state, federal, tribal, and non-governmental partners to accelerate the pace and scale of 

restoration on our national forests so forests remain resilient and provide the benefits Americans 

need. 

Collaborative initiatives are a critical tool the Forest Service uses to deliver these benefits to the 

American public. Natural resource-focused partnerships can leverage funds, boost innovation, 

and speed up the timeline for getting projects done; they are a model for interagency 

coordination across state, federal, tribal, and private lands. In short, these initiatives allow the 

Forest Service to do more critical work in our nation's forests, enhance our relationships with the 

communities in which we serve, and often lead to more durable solutions to complex issues. 

Today I will highlight a few examples oflocally-supported efforts to address communityidentified and science-based needs for the restoration oflarge landscapes. I will focus my 

remarks on resource and economic successes of the Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative, the 

Forests in Focus initiative in Montana, and our partnerships with water supply providers in 

Colorado. l will also highlight our efforts under the Good Neighbor Authority, and share results 

of 23 collaboratively designed projects across the country. 

UTAH WATERSHED RESTORATION INITIATIVE 

The Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative, a partnership-based program to improve high priority 

watersheds throughout the state, is an example of a strong collaborative effort between the Forest 

Service, other Federal agencies, and local partners. It is unique because it pools funds and 

project proposals from state and federal agencies and non-profits, so that multi-agency regional 

teams can rank, select, and allocate funding to projects in watersheds that all parties consider to 
14 

be high priority. We give priority to landscape-scale, multi-partner and multi-phased projects in 

these high-priority watersheds. All five national forests in Utah have had projects approved and 

partially funded by this Initiative. The Forest Service's Intermountain Region currently 

contributes $500,000 a year to the Initiative; most projects see approximately five to seven times 

return on that investment, when combined with state and partner funding. 

For example, the Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative helped fund the completion of the 

Blacksmith Fork Canyon winter range restoration project This project is unique because it 

accomplished work across multiple jurisdictions. The project was conducted on National Forest 

System lands and the adjacent state-owned Hardware Ranch Wildlife Management Area. Winter 

habitat for mule deer is in decline, especially in the Cache Valley. This project restored crucial 

mule deer winter habitat and reduced hazardous fuels around private property. Diverse partner 

organizations contributed nearly $185,000 towards the $206,000 project 

Utah's national forests have approved 26 projects for work during fiscal year 2018. Because of 

the success of the Initiative to date, the Forest Supervisors of the Utah national forests, in 

partnership with the Utah Department of Natural Resources, and the Utah Partners for 

Conservation and Development, have committed to achieving a million acres of watershed 

restoration on National Forest System lands in the state of Utah. Watershed restoration will be 

accomplished through a variety of methods, and will result in improved conditions for grazing, 

wildlife habitat, forest health, fishe1ies, and recreation. 

In addition to existing projects, the Utah national forests will plan new projects and complete 

environmental analysis to prepare for implementation. We will seek and employ innovative, 

creative and efficient approaches to project planning such as district-, forest- or state-wide 

decisions for juniper removal and conifer removal from aspen stands. 

We hope the Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative can serve as a model for other states for how 

we can work across federal, state, tribal, and private land, and harness the power of partnerships 

to complete crucial restoration projects. 

FORESTS IN FOCUS INITIATIVE 

Montana Governor Steve Bullock's unique forest restoration initiative, titled the "Forests in 

Focus Initiative," is designed to address key challenges and opportunities in Montana, including 

forest restoration and industry retention, collaboration and partnerships, and restoration of Tribal, 

state and private forests. This state-led initiative is investing millions of dollars in projects 

across state-federal boundaries to accomplish priority projects, including the hiring of stateForest Service and county-Forest Service liaison positions that focus on forest restoration 

activities across multiple jurisdictions. 

2 
15 

The large-scale restoration work occurring on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest in 

Montana is an example of how collaboration and partnerships may lead to more lasting support 

for restoration and forest management activities. The Forests in Focus initiative provided 

funding to support the Beaverhead-Deerlodge working group, a local collaborative group 

consisting of area landowners, timber industry representatives, environmental groups, and county 

commissioners. This state investment leveraged partner funding, with in-kind services from 

private parties, non-profit organizations, and local government. The result is a 1,800 acre project 

that was collaboratively developed and has broad support. The project is currently being 

implemented, and will increase forest resilience to insects and disease, and reduce the risk of 

wildfire to local communities. Looking towards the future, this diverse group worked in 

partnership with the Forest Service to develop a "landscape strategy" document agreeing to 

restoration needs across the greater landscape. 

Governor Bullock has made $2 million available from the state fire suppression account to 

engage directly with the Forest Service on projects. The state of Montana is investing in 25 

Forest Service projects across the state, benefiting national forests and 14 counties. These 

projects are bolstering restoration outcomes on more than 200,000 acres of forest land, 

improving recreational opportunities, providing approximately 161 million board feet of timber 

to Montana's mills, and necessary goods and services to support resource dependent 

communities, including indirectly sustaining 3,000 jobs. 

FORESTS TO FAUCETS PARTNERSHIP 

In Colorado, the Forest Service has partnered with municipal water utilities, conservancy 

districts, businesses, and state partners to support forest and watershed restoration. Outcomes 

include resilient landscapes, reduced risk of catastrophic wildfires, and minimized erosion and 

sedimentation in reservoirs. Our watershed partnerships are principally funded through 

municipal and agricultural water fees- so they provide a financial link between downstream 

water users and upstream forests. Participating water utilities along the Front Range of Colorado 

serve over 3.2 million municipal customers and 900,000 acres ofagriculturalland. Colorado's 

watersheds are the source of water for 19 downstream states, so these restoration initiatives have 

both regional and national benefits. 

These partnerships are truly cross-boundary efforts, with forest and watershed restoration work 

accomplished on both public and private lands in critical watershed areas. A key outcome of 

these partnerships is reduced impacts of wildfire and post-fire floods to critical infrastructure and 

private property. The proactive forest health and restoration treatments conducted through these 

partnerships are projected to reduce overall costs in the long run for local, state, tribal, and 

federal governments. Collectively, our water provider partners have contributed over $28 

million, which has been matched by $31 million in Forest Service funding for vegetation and 

watershed restoration treatments over the last eight years in Colorado. 

3 
16 

So far, approximately 50,000 acres treated (hazardous fuel removal, prescribed bums, wetland 

and riparian restoration, and invasive species treatments), 920,000 trees planted in burned areas, 

and 80 miles of trails and roads restored, constructed or decommissioned have been completed 

through these watershed restoration partnerships. This work is conducted by private companies 

so also supports local economies. In 2016, this work created and maintained over 90 logging, 

wood processing, and other forest sector jobs. 

Another example of working across boundaries is the San Juan Headwaters Forest Health 

Partnership. The Forest Service is working with the Colorado State Forest Service and Natural 

Resource Conservation Service to reduce wildfire risk to community water resources in the 

Fourmile and Turkey springs areas in Archuleta County. Since 2009, the partnership has secured 

over $1 million for forest restoration and resilience work In addition, over the last two years, the 

Pagosa Ranger District and the Natural Resource Conservation Service were awarded nearly 

$1.3 million to conduct more treatments on private and public land as part of the Forest Service 

and Natural Resources Conservation Service Joint Chiefs' Initiative. This project is an example 

of how the Forest Service, working together with the forest products industry, is improving forest 

health, establishing wood-to-energy opportunities, and creating positive economic outcomes. 

GOOD NEIGHBOR AUTHORITY 

Using tools such as the Good Neighbor Authority, the Forest Service is actively working with 

states to treat more acres across our forested landscapes and grasslands. The Good Neighbor 

Authority allows the Forest Service to enter into cooperative agreements or contracts with states 

and Puerto Rico to allow the non-federal partners to perform watershed restoration and forest 

management services on federal lands. To date, the Forest Service has executed 83 Good 

Neighbor agreements in 29 states to accomplish a variety of restoration services. This authority 

increases our capacity by allowing us to access state agency expertise to accomplish additional 

acres of restoration work 

For example, the Oregon Department of Forestry is assisting the Fremont-Winema National 

Forest to prepare timber sale and hazardous fuels reduction projects. Also, the Oregon 

Department of Forestry is leading a coordination effort with the Forest Service, local 

governments, collaborative groups, community members and other stakeholders under the Good 

Neighbor Authority to develop a statewide restoration priority map and a subsequent program of 

work This will help the national forests in Oregon to identify future restoration priorities. 

COLLABORATION AT WORK 

Twenty-three collaboratively designed Forest Service projects across the country provide a 

snapshot of the impacts that shared stewardship can have. Together with our partners on these 

23 landscapes, we have: 

4 
17 

• Created approximately $1.2 billion in local labor income and an average of 5,180 jobs 

created or maintained each yearl 1

] 

• Sold more than 2.1 billion board feet of timber. 

• Improved access for sports enthusiasts and other recreational visitors by maintaining 630 

miles of trails and constructing nearly 90 miles of aquatic passage to allow fish to move 

under roads and maintain healthy populations. 

• Reduced hazardous fuels to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire on more than 2.4 

million acres. 

• Maintained or improved more than 16,600 miles of roads. 

• Involved more than 200 local partners, and leveraged more than $100 million in partner 

investments, for work on National Forest Systems lands through grant funding, 

stewardship agreements, job training for youth crews, monitoring, and more. 

• Leveraged more than $230 million in additional public-private partnership funding, 

including work on private and State lands. 

CONCLUSION 

We are most successful when we work together with state agencies, tribes, and other 

organizations, and focus on the highest priority needs to benefit the land and surrounding 

communities. We are honored to be stewards of the national forests, and we seek to ensure these 

resources continue to meet the needs of generations to come by finding creative solutions to 

complex natural resources issues through state-federal partnerships and collaborative initiatives 

such as the ones I have described to you today. 

i'l Labor income and jobs created have been estimated for 2011 to 2016. Other accomplishments 

include all years from 20 I 0 to 20 16. 
18 

Senator LEE. Thank you. 

Next we will hear from Mr. Moore. 

STATEMENT OF VIRGIL MOORE, DIRECTOR, STATE OF IDAHO 

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, ON BEHALF OF THE 

ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Chairman Lee, especially for getting this 

hearing rescheduled for us today so we could be here, and I appreciate the work of the Subcommittee staff in getting that done. 

I’m Virgil Moore, Vice President of the Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies and currently Director of Idaho Fish and Game. 

The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies has been around for 

a while, 1902, and the Association has been involved in almost 

every piece of major legislation relative to federal agencies, many 

of them having a collaborative foundation from the very get-go. The 

Migratory Bird Act was one of those early efforts at collaboration 

among states and Federal Governments and international boundaries. 

Collaboratives come in all sizes and shapes. Some are very large. 

Some of them are small and very local. Some are topical. They’re 

focused on water. They could be focused on an individual species 

initially. They could be focused on an output. 

But in our, in my experience, I think Senator Crapo, in a comment he made about collaboratives—he’s been a huge supporter of 

that—is ‘‘Collaboration breaks barriers. Collaboration brings people 

together to find common solutions.’’ And my written comments are 

extensive relative to a number of examples, but I want to talk a 

little bit about my involvement in collaborative endeavors at the 

state, regional and national scale. 

I found that structured collaboration can be an incredibly powerful and effective way for parties with overlapping interests and authorities to come together at the state and federal level to assist 

local communities and local entities to get things done, to just flat, 

get things done. And our working landscapes have to be sustainable both on a federal, state and private basis for those communities that rely on them, whether those communities are national 

in scope or otherwise. But I also have the perspective as a State 

Director and as a representative of the Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies, that state authority and sovereignty, relative to 

fish and wildlife, has to be known and respected in these 

collaboratives and typically, they are, as we move forward. 

Our ability to manage fish and wildlife and the trust responsibility that comes from that is something that is very important as 

we move through these. Really though, we can call them 

collaboratives today, but our history demonstrates long-standing, 

cultural tradition of people and communities working together to 

achieve those common objectives that they need for their communities, big and small. 

We recognize wildlife is international and that it does cross state 

boundaries, as well as land ownership boundaries. I think the recognition that in the West, Idaho is 63 percent federally owned— 

there’s another five percent that’s state-owned properties—making 

for a whopping two-thirds of the state in public ownership. That 

makes those private lands, most of which are very productive agri-
19 

cultural or set at the bottoms of some of these federal and state 

landscapes where we have the most productive areas—that’s why 

they were homesteaded—extremely important to keeping the functioning of all those together. What I will tell you though is that of 

all of these ventures and entities that are out there—things like 

the North American Waterfowl Act that has the joint ventures is 

one of the more productive—we’ve got 18 of those nationally across 

the state. 

I’ve got a whole series of these initiatives that are out there that 

function on a national scale but some of them, most recently, have 

been the ones that are most important and those that address 

things like prescribed fire. Here’s one that’s really been tough for 

the Forest Service and for the state where we need to manage large 

landscapes with fire and those problems extend a long ways. You 

burn something in Idaho, it gets to Missoula. You create an issue 

in terms of trying to execute collaborative management in the 

Clearwater Basin Collaborative in a whole different state and ecosystem. Those are difficult to do but need to be executed. It is these 

collaboratives that are going to make those possible. 

I’ll point out the two state collaboratives here real quick, while 

I’m running out of time—but the Idaho Roadless Plan that Senator 

Risch, when he was Governor, promoted and the Idaho Sage 

Grouse Plan that Governor Otter promoted, that I co-chaired, are 

examples of statewide collaboratives that were very important. 

Thank you, Senator Lee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:] 
20 

Statement of Virgil Moore, Director, State ofldaho Department ofFish and Game, 

On Behalf of the Association ofFish and Wildlife Agencies 

Before the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests & Mining 

Heating on Collaborative Initiatives on Restoring Watersheds and Large Landscapes 

Across Boundaries through State and Federal Partnerships 

June 20, 2017 

Introduction 

Chairman Lee and Senator Wyden, thank-you for the opportunity to testify before the Senate 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and 

Mining about Collaborative Initiatives focusing on restoring watersheds and large landscapes 

across boundaries through State and Federal partnerships. 

I am Virgil Moore, vice-president of the Association ofFish and Wildlife Agencies (Association) 

and the Director ofldaho Department ofFish and Game (IDFG). Founded in 1902 to protect the 

authority of states to manage fish and wildlife within their borders, the Association has been an 

effective participant in all significant federal fish and wildlife legislation, federal executive 

branch rules, and related policy since inception of the Association. All 50 state fish and wildlife 

agencies are members. The Association advocates science-informed fish and wildlife 

management for sustainable use by hunters, anglers, and all citizens, which is delivered through 

partnerships with agencies, the federal government, and conservation non-governmental 

organizations (NGOs). 

I open my comments with a quote from Idaho's current senior senator, the Honorable Mike 

Crapo: "Collaboration breaks barriers. Collaboration brings people together to find common 

solutions." 

In my tenure both with the Association and IDFG, I have been involved in collaborative 

endeavors at the state, regional, and national scale. I have found that structured collaboration can 

be an incredibly powerful and effective way for parties with overlapping authorities and 

interests, such as the State and Federal government, to achieve mutually important work that 

benefits sustainability of our landscapes to uphold the resources and values which are dependent 

on those landscapes. My perspective is that state sovereign authority to manage fish and wildlife 

is dependent on the sustainability of such landscapes. Really, although we call them 

collaboratives today, our history demonstrates a long-standing, cultural tradition of people and 

communities working together to achieve common objectives. 

In this spirit, the Association of the Fish and Wildlife Agencies (Association) since its' founding 

has always been committed to an active working relationship with our partners in the federal 

government agencies. We recognize that wildlife is international, in addition to crossing state 

boundaries. States have broad police powers and statutory authority to manage fish and wildlife 

within their borders, including on most federal lands, which Congress has repeatedly affirmed. 

Because the federal government owns the public land and habitat, and the states manage the fish 

1 
21 

and wildlife, cooperation is compelled in order to integrate fish and wildlife population 

objectives into the federal land/habitat management plans. 

The Association was a key player in working with the State Department and what is now known 

as the US Fish and Wildlife Service to negotiate the Migratory Bird Treaty of 1916 with Canada. 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 codified the treaty provisions and gave direction to the 

Secretary on migratory bird management including the provision of regulating hunting of 

migratory game birds. The MBTA recognizes that both the states and the federal government 

share jurisdictional responsibilities for migratory bird conservation. 

As Congress enacted federal land management agencies' organic acts in the last century, 

Congress, at the urging of the Association, preserved the authority of the states to manage fish 

and wildlife on federal lands, with the exception of congressionally delegated National Parks. 

The federal land management agencies incorporated that Congressional direction into agency 

rules, guidance and manuals. 

I would like to share some national examples oflandscape conservation delivered by solid statefederal cooperation. The backdrop created by these national programs powers delivery of on-theground conservation in every state. 

Migratory Bird Joint Ventures 

Thirty years ago, there was no roadmap for Migratory Bird Joint Ventures. The early 

partnerships were forged with profound ingenuity to address the continental problem of declining 

waterfowl populations and rapid destruction of habitat. Today, the regional landscape-based 

Joint Ventures are collaborative partnerships of government agencies, non-profit organizations, 

corporations, tribes, and individuals that conserve habitat for priority bird species, other wildlife, 

and people in support of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Through voluntary, 

proactive conservation, Joint Ventures reduce the need for additional regulations by undertaking 

biological planning, conservation design, project implementation, monitoring, evaluation, 

research, and communications. In the United States, 18 habitat-based joint ventures have a long 

history of success in leveraging public and private resources and since the first Joint Venture was 

established in 1987, these partnerships have leveraged appropriated funds at a ratio of over 30:1 

and have helped conserve 24 million acres of habitat. Joint Venture habitat conservation 

harnesses the interest and energy of the participating organizations and provides hunting and 

fishing opportunities, birdwatching, places to hike, camp, and enjoy nature, and create places 

where our future generations will be able to enjoy their natural heritage. 

The US Forest Service (USPS) is a member of7 Joint Venture Management Boards, and the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is a member of 6 management boards. However, there are 

opportunities for both agencies to engage with more Joint Venture management boards or 

technical committees. There are numerous examples of highly successful collaboration, but I will 

focus on only a few of the more active partnerships. The Eastern Region of the US Forest 

Service and state partners are working with the Appalachian Mountains and Central Hardwood 

Joint Ventures on oak restoration and early successional habitat through workshops to train state, 

federal, and private landowners on management practices to benefit native wildlife, including 

2 
22 

songbirds and game birds. The Region is also working with the Upper Mississippi River/Great 

Lakes Joint Venture to better coordinate migratory bird monitoring protocols and activities 

across agencies. The Alaska Region of the Forest Service is an active participant in the Pacific 

Birds Habitat Joint Venture promoting important conservation activities for the incredible 

migratory bird resource found in that region. The final example, is a self-directed partnership of 

federal and state agencies, non-government agencies, private land owners, and the Intermountain 

West Joint Venture (IWJV) that are all focused on the sagebrush ecosystem. 

The sagebrush ecosystem today is approximately half of its original size and it is considered one 

of America's most iconic ecosystems. It exemplifies a working landscape. This vast landscape 

covers eleven states and over 173 million acres and provides habitat for sage grouse and more 

than 350 other species. Public lands managed by the BLM and U.S. Forest Service make up 

more than half of all sage grouse habitat. The partnership model is based on three ingredients for 

success: (1) Putting science into practice; (2) Restoring and conserving sagebrush habitat for all 

users; and (3) Telling the story to garner support to further sagebrush conservation and 

management. This Sage Grouse Initiative is by far the largest and most active partnership 

between the Intermountain West Joint Venture, USFS, BLM, and USDA's Natural Resource 

Conservation Service. BLM is providing up to $5 million over five years (2016-2021) to scale up 

proactive, targeted sagebrush rangeland conservation on public and private lands and leverage 

other resources through partnerships and collaborative efforts. 

http://mbjv.org/ 

National Fish Habitat Partnership 

The National Fish Habitat Partnership, which was fonnalized in 2006 through the Department of 

Commerce, the Department of the Interior, and State Fish and Wildlife Agencies has done some 

extraordinary work across the landscape through 20 regional partnerships established to protect, 

restore and enhance fish habitat benefitting anglers and our citizens across the country. Since 

2006, nearly 700 projects have been implemented under the national partnership reversing and 

arresting declines in aquatic habitat. In addition to enhancing fish habitat, these projects 

contribute significantly to water purification for our citizens. Since its inception, the program has 

leveraged $66 million with nearly $115 million of state, local, and private funds directly 

benefitting on-the-ground conservation actions. A Secretarial MOU was also signed in 2012 

between the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce and the Interior to adopt the partnership 

program within Department agencies. 

A few examples of projects that I would like to highlight include collaborations between our 

regional partnerships and the US Forest Service and BLM. The Western Native Trout Initiative, 

under the National Fish Habitat Partnership program is collaborating with the U.S. Forest 

Service (Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest), the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and 

numerous other partners on a large scale, highly leveraged public-private partnership on the Mill 

Creek Watershed Restoration Project (MCWRP) a multi-year project to improve native fish 

habitat in Mill Creek just outside of Salt Lake City, Utah. The Mill Creek Project objectives are 

to remove ten man-made barriers, removal of an unneeded bridge and an abandoned 

hydroelectric dam, redesign of the stream channel, improved fishing access, redesign of a small 

lake to include a spawning channel, replacement of seven undersized culverts that are partial fish 

3 
23 

barriers, and the development of educational materials for the public about the importance of 

aquatic and terrestrial resources, including native fish. Project partners include the US Forest 

Service, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, the National Forest Foundation, the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the Great Salt Lake Council of the Boy Scouts of America, PacifiCorp, Trout 

Unlimited Utah Council and Stonefly Society, Flying Cloud Enterprises Inc., Utah Habitat 

Council Watershed Restoration Initiative, and Salt Lake County. 

http://www.fishhabitat.org/ 

White-nose Syndrome Bat Research 

Good state-federal cooperation for key research is producing results for practitioners to deliver 

on the ground conservation results. A team of U. S. Forest Service Research and Development 

scientists have developed innovative methods to treat bats infected with deadly white-nose 

fungus, using chemicals found in soil bacteria. White-nose Syndrome, caused by the fun!:,'US, was 

introduced accidentally into the United States in 2006 and has since led directly to the deaths of 

over 5 million insect-eating bats in 30 U. S. states and 5 Canadian provinces. Populations of 

several North American species of bats have declined so precipitously that they have been 

considered for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act. The USFS research team has 

worked closely with state fish and wildlife agencies and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

test methods for treating infected bats in the laboratory. The first group of successfully treated 

bats was released back into the wild at the Mark Twain Cave Complex in Missouri on May 201

h, 

2015. 

https :1 lwww. nrs. fs .fed. us/news/rei ease/wns-treated -bats-rei eased 

Sage Grouse Initiative 

Collaboration between diverse partners is what's working to save sage grouse as well as the vast 

sagebrush sea that sustains communities and 350+ species. The Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI) is a 

new paradigm for conserving at-risk wildlife and America's western rangelands that works 

through voluntary cooperation, incentives, and community support. Launched in 20 l 0, SGI is a 

partnership-based, science-driven effort which is led by USDA's Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. SGI applies the power of the Farm Bill to target lands where habitats are 

intact and sage grouse numbers are highest. To date, SGI has partnered with 1,474 ranchers to 

conserve 5.6 million acres across 11 western states. While private lands are the primary 

focus, SGI also serves as a catalyst for public land enhancements such as a recent Bureau of 

Land Management 5-year agreement working cooperatively across boundaries to benefit both 

working public lands and wildlife across the sagebrush sea by implementing targeted 

conservation projects. 

https:/ /www. sagegrouseinitiative. com/ 

Environmental DNA Sampling 

ln 2014, the U. S. Forest Service launched the National Genomics Center for Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation, based at the University of Montana in Missoula, to apply new and cutting-edge 

technologies to the practice offish and wildlife management. The Center specializes in 

applications such as environmental DNA, or "eDNA," which uses small amounts of DNA 

4 
24 

present in water samples to detect and monitor the presence of rare or invasive aquatic 

species. Modem eDNA methods are much cheaper and require less effort than traditional ways 

of sampling fish and other aquatic organisms. The Center also uses new genomics approaches to 

study population dynamics in terrestrial species of conservation or management interest, 

including greater sage-grouse, wolverine, and gray wolf. The Genomics Center is currently 

investigating greater sage-grouse genetic variation, population structure, and population 

connectivity. This research is providing scientific support for prioritizing conservation actions on 

the ground for the greater sage-grouse, such as identifying critical habitat and breeding grounds, 

or leks. Most importantly, the research from the Genomics Center will allow managers to 

evaluate how disturbances at individual leks influence the overall connectivity of the breeding 

network. The Genomics Center is analyzing genetic data from several thousand samples, 

collected from over 800 leks across Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. This work 

is being done in collaboration with other federal agencies, non-profit organizations, and eleven 

state fish and wildlife agencies. 

https://www.fs.fed.us/research/genomics-center/ 

Prescribed Fire Restoration 

Good state-federal cooperation is also occurring in the southeast. At Tallulah Gorge State Park in 

northeast Georgia, the mountainous terrain is so steep that much of it cannot be traversed with 

equipment, and some areas are too steep to travel by foot. Most of the forest in this area is 

dominated by fire-dependent Table Mountain pine and pitch pine and includes a number of rare 

fire dependent plant communities that are conservation priorities. Property lines between the 

Chattahoochee National Forest and Tallulah Gorge State Park traverse this steep terrain, making 

use of prescribed fire nearly impossible until recently. Collaboration between the U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS) and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has taken the pressure 

off bum managers to keep their fires 'in the lines' and opened up vast areas of the park and the 

adjoining national forest for habitat restoration with prescribed fire. Bums are now conducted as 

joint operations between the two agencies with fires traversing USFS and State Park lands. 

USFS and DNR lend expertise and share bum planning efforts in the year leading up to the bum 

as well as share fire equipment, personnel and even aviation resources on the day of bums. 

Whereas a few years ago fire had to stop at the property line, making many bum units simply too 

risky to attempt, in recent years thousands of acres have been burned by the two agencies 

operating seamlessly toward the common goal of putting fire back into the landscape 

surrounding Tallulah Gorge. This model is also being carried on a larger scale within the 

framework of Georgia's Interagency Bum Team (IBT), whose members include U.S. Forest 

Service and Georgia Department of Natural Resources among others. The outcome is increased 

capability to successfully implement prescribed fire on high priority conservation sites 

throughout Georgia to implement technically challenging bums on many other important 

conservation sites supporting high priority species and habitats. 

Idaho 

I'd like to put on my IDFG Director hat and provide you with a snapshot of some Idaho 

collaboratives. While many of our initial structured collaboratives were focused on U.S. Forest 

5 
25 

Service (USFS) forest restoration to benefit multiple resources and values, a diversity of issues 

are being addressed. 

Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative 

The Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative (KVRI), of which the IDFG Commission is a member, 

is a USFS recognized collaborative. Stemming from the 1990s when virtually every natural 

resource topic was adversarial between one community and governmental sector or another, its 

focus is the development and selection of! and management (timber harvest, fire management, 

road management) projects. The USFS provides funds to the Idaho Panhandle Forest to facilitate 

collaborative project development and implementation on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District. It 

was initiated by a joint powers agreement between Boundary County, the City of Bonners Ferry, 

and the Kootenai Tribe ofldaho. Membership is very diverse representing several private and 

governmental sectors of the community. KVRI has been highly successful in removing barriers 

to communications, increased understanding of multiple perspectives, and engaged problem 

solving. Some notable successes include the development of a Kootenai River burbot 

conservation strategy, a wetland restoration "roadmap", and advancement of community 

awareness to advance grizzly bear recovery while being sensitive to community needs for 

enhanced land management. KVRI has fostered productive working relationships between state 

and federal agencies, the Kootenai Tribe, and the community. 

https ://www. national forests. org/ assets/pdfs/Overcoming-Coll aborati ve-Fatigue Perry. pdf 

Clearwater Bain Collaborative 

The Clearwater Basin Collaborative (CBC) mission statement is "working to enhance and protect 

the economic and ecological values of the Clearwater Basin of Idaho". With a foundation in the 

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, the intent was to treat priority landscapes 

that was at least 50,000 acres, comprised primarily of national forest System lands in need of 

active ecosystem restoration and in proximity to existing or proposed wood-processing 

infrastructure. The federal nexus is an MOU between the Clearwater Basin Collaborative and the 

U.S. Forest Service, NezPerce-Clearwater National Forests. 

The CBC, which includes IDFG, is guided by an agreement and workplan that addresses 

multiple elements, ranging from forest management to rural economic needs, important to the 

diverse array of parties. The workplan is a comprehensive approach designed to address diverse 

and often competing interests and formalizes the parties' commitment to work through these 

issues. CBC approaches its deliberations as a problem-solving body seeking to produce 

consensus recommendations that address, insofar as possible, the practical needs and interests of 

all participants. The group works jointly to educate and build understanding regarding 

participants values and interests. 

http://clearwaterbasincollaborative.org/ 

Rangeland Fire Protection Assoc.iations 

The power and success of state, federal, and private entities collaborating together to effect 

multiple use benefits from our federally managed lands has expanded beyond forestry projects. 

6 
26 

point to Rangeland Fire Protection Associations (RFP As) in Idaho. Prior to 2012, ranchers could 

not legally fight rangeland fires that threatened their livelihood and sage-grouse habitat even 

though they could provide swift initial response because of their knowledge of the land and 

proximity to the fires. A collaborative effort between local ranchers, the Bureau of Land 

Management, and the Idaho Depmtment of Lands created the RFPAs which also receive 

financial support from the US. Fish and Wildlife Service. For the 2016 fire season, there were 

250 ranchers that were members of8 different RFPAs, protecting over 7.7 million acres. 

Meeting the important principle that collaborations succeed when outcomes fulfill mutual 

interests, RFPAs allow ranchers to be active participants in protecting the forage needed for their 

livelihood, satisfy fire manager's safety concerns regarding training, equipment, and 

communications, support a comprehensive and coordinated approach to fire suppression in 

Idaho, and enhance efforts to protect sage grouse habitat, a benefit not only to Idaho, but also to 

the nation. 

https://www.idl.idaho.gov/fire/rfpa/ 

Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Program 

The watershed program arose from the "Model Watershed" of the early 1990s, which originated 

form the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's strategy for salmon recovery, and is 

currently led by the Idaho Office of Species Conservation. Originally focused on certain key 

tributaries in the upper Salmon Basin, the areas was expanded to the entire Upper Salmon River 

Basin in 2000. This collaborative program focuses on projects such as riparian habitat 

restoration, fish migration barrier removal, and instream flow enhancement in priority 

watersheds for anadromous fish that result in more resilient watersheds that contribute to Snake 

River salmon and steelhead recovery and are compatible with local agriculture needs for water 

and private working landscapes. What could be more controversial than water in a western state 

yet since 1993, the program has accomplished 544 restoration projects, many of which are on 

private land. Unlike many of the federal land-focused collaboratives, partnership with private 

landowners is essential to this program. Federal managers in the area, such as NOAA Fisheries 

and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management are members of the program along with IDFG and 

other state agencies, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, local community groups such as the Salmon 

Valley Stewardship, and other non-governmental organizations engaged in natural resource 

issues such as the Nature Conservancy and Trout Unlimited. 

http:/ /model watershed. org/ 

Western Association ofFish and Wildlife Agencies Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool 

(CHAT) 

I have provided you with some examples of national and Idaho collaboratives that I think serve 

as models of success to achieve state and federal priorities focused on-the-ground. I'll pivot and 

offer a glimpse of another important type of collaboration shared data consistently presented to 

ensure better integration of state fish and wildlife inforn1ation into landscape-scale decisions and 

planning. 

In 2013, the Western Governors Association (WGA) unveiled an unprecedented and cooperative 

effort of 16 Western states to provide the public and industry an overview of"crucial habitat" 

7 
27 

across the West, called the CHAT. This landscape map developed from state-led data provided a 

"30,000-foot view" of habitat for pre-planning that could be used for projects as varied as 

"macro-siting" energy corridors and transmission routes, to comparing fish and wildlife habitat 

across the West. Significant federal funding and partnership enabled states to come together to 

fulfil the WGA vision. 

The CHAT is now a new initiative of the Western Association ofFish and Wildlife Agencies 

(W AFWA). W AFWA and the western states remain committed to providing comparable and 

cohesive state-based fish and wildlife information across the landscape and to creating a multifaceted tool providing accurate and objective fish and wildlife information to guide landscape 

planning decisions of tomorrow. WAFWA is currently working with western states and federal 

partners, such as a recent grant from the Network of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to facilitate continued CHAT data integration into land use 

decisions and explore new cross-state data sharing tools that benefits states and other 

conservation and management partners. 

Structural Success 

I point to structural components of the Clearwater Basin Collaborative that beget success. The 

collaborative is a self-formed and self-governing group with representation from individuals with 

a diversity of interests and backgrounds. The group operates in accordance with a specific set of 

protocols, and members are responsible to act in good faith to develop workable solutions that 

the address the needs of all interest at the table. Part of what makes it tick are committed cochairs, committed members, and a belief and understanding by all participants that collaboration 

is the way to move the ball forward in the Clearwater Basin. The group is committed to meeting 

regularly and operates under a no-surprises principle in the public eye. It holds itself accountable 

to a workplan and defined objectives. Federal funding supports this structure. 

My personal observations about what fosters success generally mirror observations detailed in 

Getting Together in Idaho: A Survey <?f Six Collaborative Jijfi;rts on Public !,and~ (C. Weiland, 

2002). 

•There must be strong incentives to bring diverse and competing interests together and to stay 

committed at the table to create mutual outcomes; there must be strong disincentive to "hijack" 

the process to favor a particular interest. 

•There must be balanced representation of interests that is understanding and respectful of 

sovereign authorities, including management of public trust assets. 

•There must be clear objectives, i.e. is the collaborative designed for recommendations? For 

decisions and implementation? 

•Process must be consistent and transparent and process challenges and complexities must be 

clearly articulated up front. 

•There must be sufficient fiscal and human infrastructure support. 

8 
28 

In closing, thank-you for the opportunity to offer information and perspectives about 

collaboratives on behalf of the Association and Idaho. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions and lam available for any further inquiry or follow-up from the Subcommittee. 

9 
29 

Senator LEE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Thompson. 

STATEMENT OF TYLER THOMPSON, DIRECTOR, UTAH’S 

WATERSHED RESTORATION INITIATIVE, UTAH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairman Lee, for the opportunity to 

testify before this Committee today about Utah’s Watershed Restoration Initiative, or WRI. As an employee of the Utah Department of Natural Resources, I currently serve as the Director of 

WRI. WRI is one of the West’s unique success stories. It ensures 

that federal, state and local partners can work together across ownership boundaries with unmatched speed and efficiency to improve 

large landscapes. 

Utah’s WRI focuses on improving three key things: watershed 

health and biological diversity, water quality and yield, and opportunities for sustainable uses of natural resources. Now entering its 

12th year, the WRI partnership has completed more than 1,600 

projects and restored more than 1.3 million acres on federal, state 

and private lands in Utah. Investment from over 500 unique funding sources now exceeds $160 million. Most of that funding comes 

from federal and state sources including, on average, more than 

$5 million annually from the State of Utah, over $7 million annually from federal sources, and nearly $2 million annually from 

sportsmen’s groups. 

Like many successful programs before it, WRI developed out of 

crisis. In the early 2000s, Utah was in the midst of a long-term 

drought. Across the state, sagebrush ecosystems were in decline as 

pinyon and juniper trees continued to crowd out understory forage 

plants necessary for both livestock and wildlife. Aspen was in decline and invasive species, such as cheatgrass, were beginning to 

dominate large landscapes after more frequent and widespread 

wildfires. 

Utah’s WRI has organized itself as a bottom-up initiative with 

five independent regional teams. These teams consist of regional 

resource professionals from federal, state and local agencies, as 

well as sportsmen’s groups, environmental organizations, private 

landowners and other natural-resource-oriented groups. These regional teams identify where restoration projects are needed and 

what needs to be done. The teams annually rank their project proposals with guidance from WRI administration, which then 

matches the proposals, in ranked order, to appropriate and willing 

funding sources until funds are exhausted. The regional teams then 

help each other implement large-scale restoration projects across 

ownership boundaries. 

For Utah’s damaged landscapes, WRI is making a huge difference. Burned areas are swiftly being reseeded with plants beneficial to wildlife and livestock; stream and riparian restoration has 

improved water flow and quality; sagebrush and aspen ecosystems 

are being restored, benefiting hundreds of species that rely on them 

for food and shelter; sage grouse and other at-risk wildlife species 

are holding steady or increasing in numbers; and Utah’s sportsmen 

are enjoying healthier and more abundant game statewide. 
30 

Today, I’d like to highlight a few of the more important strategies that have helped WRI to be successful over the last 12 years. 

First. Utah’s Department of Natural Resources, or DNR, has 

taken on the major organizing role in WRI. Through federal authorities, such as the Wyden Amendment and the Good Neighbor 

Authority, federal agencies have developed assistance agreements 

with DNR. Those agreements send federal funds to be pooled with 

other state and non-governmental resources. This allows WRI to 

fund and complete restoration work across ownership boundaries 

on a larger scale, at a much quicker pace and for a fraction of the 

cost. Over the life of the initiative, DNR has routed more than 

$44 million in federal funds through WRI, without taking a dime 

in overhead. 

Second. The state government system of awarding competitive 

contracts is much more efficient than the federal system. This allows WRI to quickly implement restoration projects and wildfire rehabilitation by swiftly purchasing seed, completing cultural resource surveys and hiring contractors to complete the work. 

Third. WRI encourages regional teams to complete large-scale, 

cross-boundary, programmatic NEPA work. To advance this effort, 

WRI has developed a special funding source to help federal agencies complete the NEPA process in areas where restoration is desperately needed but, due to other priorities, federal land management agencies may not have the time or staff to dedicate to the 

analysis. WRI-NEPA funds are being made available to fund overtime hours for current federal employees or to hire outside contractors to help complete this critical NEPA work. 

In summary, WRI tackles landscape scale challenges with a powerful, effective partnership. 

Thank you again for the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:] 
31 

June 20, 2017 

Congressional Testimony from 

Tyler Thompson 

Director 

Utah's Watershed Restoration Initiative 

Utah Department of Natural Resources 

Before the 

United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining 

Chairman Lee, members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the invitation to testify before this 

committee about Utah's Watershed Restoration Initiative. 

As an employee of the Utah Department of Natural Resources, I currently serve as the 

Director of Utah's Watershed Restoration Initiative (WRI). Before accepting this position in 

January 2017, I spent three years as a restoration biologist in southern Utah and more than a 

decade as the funding and operations coordinator for the Initiative. 

WRI is one of the West's unique success stories. It ensures that federal, state and local 

partners can work together across boundaries -with unmatched speed and efficiency- to 

improve large landscapes. Utah's WRI focuses on improving three key things: 

• Watershed health and biological diversity 

• Water quality and yield 

• Opportunities for sustainable uses of natural resources 

Now entering its 12th year, the WRI partnership has completed more than 1,600 projects 

and restored more than 1.3 million acres of watersheds on federal, state and private lands in 

Utah. The cost of this work now exceeds $160 million. More than 500 unique funding sources 

have been used to help fund WRI projects over the years. Most of that funding comes from 

federal and state sources, including, on average, more than $5 million annually from the State of 

Utah, over $7 million annually from Federal sources and nearly $2 million annually from 

sportsmen's groups. 

Like many successful programs before it, WRI developed out of crisis. In the early 

2000s, Utah was in the midst of a long-term drought Across the state, Sagebrush ecosystems 

were in decline as pinyon and juniper trees continued to crowd out understory forage plants 
32 

necessary for both wildlife and livestock. Aspen was in decline and invasive species, such as 

cheatgrass, were beginning to dominate large landscapes after more frequent, widespread 

wildfires. 

To address the crisis, leadership from federal and state land-management agencies met 

with other natural-resource-oriented agencies and organizations from across the state. In 2005, 

this group formalized the WRI partnership by drafting a charter that outlined future cooperation 

and leadership in addressing major natural resource threats at a watershed scale. 

Utah's WRI has organized itself as a bottom-up initiative with five independent regional 

teams. These teams consist of regional resource professionals from federal, state and local 

agencies as well as sportsmen's groups, environmental organizations, private landowners and 

other natural-resource-oriented groups. These regional teams identify where restoration projects 

are needed and what needs to be done. The teams annually rank their project proposals with 

guidance from WRI administration, which then match the proposals- in ranked order- to 

appropriate and willing funding sources, until funds are exhausted. The regional teams then help 

each other implement large-scale restoration projects across ownership boundaries. 

For Utah's damaged landscapes, WRI is making a huge difference. Burned areas are 

swiftly being reseeded with plants beneficial to wildlife and livestock. Stream and riparian 

restoration has improved water flows and quality. Sagebrush and Aspen ecosystems are being 

restored, benefiting hundreds of species that rely on them for food and shelter. Sage grouse and 

other at-risk wildlife species are holding steady or increasing in numbers and Utah's sportsman 

are enjoying healthier and more abundant game statewide. 

Today, I'd like to highlight a few of the most important strategies that have helped WRI 

to be successful over the last 12 years: 

First: Utah's Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has taken on the major organizing role in 

WRI. Through federal authorities (such as the Wyden Amendment and the Good Neighbor 

Authority), federal agencies have developed assistance agreements with DNR. Those agreements 

send federal funds to be pooled with other state and non-government resources. This allows WRI 

to fund and complete restoration work across ownership boundaries on a larger scale, at a much 

quicker pace and for a fraction of the cost. Over the life of the Initiative, DNR has routed more 

than $44 million dollars in federal funds through WRI, without taking a dime in overhead. 

Second: The state government system of awarding competitive contracts is much more efficient 

than the federal system. This allows WRI to quickly implement restoration projects and wildfire 

rehabilitation by swiftly purchasing seed, completing cultural resource surveys and hiring 

contractors to complete the work. 

Third: WRI encourages regional teams to complete large-scale, cross-boundary, programmatic 

NEPA work. To advance this effort, WRI has developed a special funding source to help federal 
33 

agencies complete the NEPA process in areas where restoration is desperately needed but, due to 

other priorities, federal land management agencies may not have the time or staff to dedicate to 

the analysis. WRI-NEPA funds are made available to fund overtime hours for current federal 

employees or to hire outside contractors to help complete critical ~'EPA work. 

Fourth: Utah uses the existing WRI partnership to complete restoration, on an emergency basis, 

following wildfire. Federal programs such as BLM's Emergency Stabilization and the USFS' 

Burned Area Emergency Response typically focus on stabilization of soils to minimize runoff 

and sediment flows following burns. WRI partners supplement these federal efforts with 

additional seed and funding to tum these stabilization efforts into a more complete restoration of 

watershed health and to extend restoration onto adjacent burned state and private lands. This 

helps benefits wildlife habitat, water quality and quantity, livestock forage, and reduces the risk 

offuture catastrophic fires. Fire rehabilitation in Utah is now completed across ownership 

boundaries and at a large scale. 

In summary, WRI tackles landscape scale challenges with a powerful, effective partnership. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to your 

questions. 

For more information on Utah's Watershed Restoration Initiative, 

Please visit our website: 

watcrshed.utah. gQY 
34 

Senator LEE. Thanks to all of you for your prepared testimony. 

We are now going to have some questions and this gives me a 

unique opportunity, especially if we do not have any other members show up, that gives me more time to ask questions. So I appreciate your willingness to answer them. 

Mr. Thompson, let’s start with you. Wildfire is obviously a concern in Utah, as it is in most parts of the Western United States. 

Certainly, it is something that challenges everyone everywhere 

with the type of land susceptible to wildfires, but we have a whole 

lot of those lands in the Western United States and especially in 

Utah. Wildfires burned about 100,000 acres in Utah just last year 

alone—that is a big deal. 

Now our policy discussions often focus, somewhat understandably, on fire prevention efforts and on fire suppression efforts. It 

is not surprising that that is the case, but it is also important to 

recognize the significance and the deep importance of wildfire rehabilitation because what you do after a wildfire can determine a lot 

in terms of the ultimate outcome. 

You referenced WRI’s work with wildfire rehabilitation in your 

testimony. I understand the group’s efforts on that front have been 

extraordinarily effective. Can you briefly explain to us how the program works and why it has been successful? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairman Lee. Thank you. 

Utah’s program is unique. We’ve taken this WRI partnership and 

we’ve utilized it to complete fire rehab, as you mentioned. In Utah, 

we have funding sources that tie into the federal stabilization programs that help us to rehabilitate across ownership boundaries. 

In 2007, when we had Utah’s largest wildfire, the Milford Flat 

Fire, we realized as different agencies that we didn’t have the time 

or the resources to complete this on our own, as we had been doing 

for years. So we came together. We tore down all the burned fences 

and we used this WRI partnership to pool funds again in DNR. 

And DNR and WRI came together and put contracts out, got the 

seed purchased, got the seed mixed, had it tested and we came up 

with a single strategy and a single seed mix that could be put out 

across ownership boundaries. This was the only way that we were 

able to actually complete that restoration. 

The federal programs have historically focused on stabilization, 

and the State of Utah is unique in the fact that it supplements 

those seed mixes with more forbs and more shrubs so that we can 

complete a full restoration program. I think that’s something that’s 

unique to Utah and I think it’s been very successful, and we’ve 

been able to tackle these large years where we have hundreds of 

thousands of acres of fires. 

Senator LEE. Thank you. 

Ms. Weldon, let’s turn to you. You briefly mentioned the Good 

Neighbor Authority and mentioned that as an effective way to deal 

with restoration issues and to meet restoration goals because it allows the Forest Service to work with state agencies and to access 

and benefit from some of the state agency expertise. Are there 

other areas of federal land management that could benefit from 

this type of approach? 

Ms. WELDON. Yes, thanks for your question. 
35 

So we’re, with the Good Neighbor Authority, we’re really starting 

with the idea that state forestry agencies and the national forest 

and private landowners have a lot of shared ownership in outcomes 

on both sides or all sides of the boundaries. 

The example around wildfire is also very important as it relates 

to reducing hazardous fuels, but we also have examples where we 

have states—I believe New Mexico was the first, and I believe Oregon—are also working with us for projects that are focusing on 

wildlife habitat improvement. But even beyond that, there’s opportunities for us to look at things like shared management of recreation facilities and that. 

So we’re in a mode of really exploring into that and want to 

make sure, as we get confident and good examples early on, that 

we’re actively expanding that to other areas where we could, where 

we have shared interest in serving the public and through conservation. 

Senator LEE. That is good in a time when every penny counts. 

Ms. WELDON. Every penny counts, exactly. 

Senator LEE. That can be very helpful. 

Ms. WELDON. Every penny and every bit of skill and expertise 

counts. 

Senator LEE. Sure. Thank you. 

Now, Ms. Bail, BLM has not enjoyed the benefits of Good Neighbor Authority for quite as long as the Forest Service has, but is the 

BLM, so far, having similar success with it? 

Ms. BAIL. Yes, sir. We are currently using the Good Neighbor 

Authority and are in the process of expanding it in four states. We 

either have agreements, a grant in development or in discussions. 

And similar to what Ms. Weldon talked about, you know, there’s 

a lot of opportunity and utility and need for additional arrangements in this regard. And we look forward to continuing collaborative discussions with states where we have shared interests and 

needs to fully utilize this very important authority. 

Senator LEE. Do you have any idea what areas you think might 

be ripe for that kind of work? 

Ms. BAIL. Leslie mentioned recreation, but certainly there are 

millions of acres of areas in the Great Basin and others that need 

treatment, you know, pinyon, juniper, treating invasive cheatgrass. 

There are many common interests to preventing the spread of 

that invasive annual grass as well as getting our rangelands more 

productive and more fire resilient. And so, continuing to work on 

those on-the-ground efforts, fostering those partnerships and collaborative efforts to look across fences, you know, neighbor-up and 

really prioritize, as you mentioned, where we have only limited fiscal resources. Let’s do it smart, let’s do it together, get the most 

effect for our investment. And these collaborative partnership efforts really help us do that. 

Senator LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. Moore, this morning we heard about some of the more successful collaborative initiatives. Not all, of course, have achieved 

equal results and some have even failed. In your experience, what 

distinguishes those that succeed and perform really well and those 

that do not? 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
36 

Certainly, I think it is having very committed individuals for the 

self-governing and self-formed groups that are out there. Really 

what it means though, is people who have individual interest, or 

their entities have interest, is to come to the table with an understanding that all of those interests have to be accepted and 

interacted on. What undermines them, the ones that I have seen 

that have failed over the years, are people that came in with interest and were uncompromising in the approach in which their interest and need was addressed. They had a solution that they wanted 

on the table for the issue they brought there and they were not 

willing to find other solutions that met the need of the whole. And 

being sure that we have the necessary mechanisms in place to protect those collaboratives as they’ve moved forward with solutions 

from being undermined unnecessarily by folks that are singleapproach in what they do, I think, is very important. 

Certainly, all entities have certain rights relative to the processes we have, the public processes we have. But it’s been my experience that the ones that have been most durable have been those 

where the interests have been broad, I mean, everybody is at the 

table. And when a challenge came to their outputs, whatever that 

might be, they stood together—state, federal, county, NGO, tribe, 

you name it, the private landowners—relative to the various administrative challenges, even up to and including court review, and 

they persisted because they stood together against those few that 

might be on the outside. 

At the same time, the use of federal processes—in particular, 

NEPA—to stall, delay or interfere with what has been wellthought-out collaboratives is an issue that has to be taken up by 

the collaborative, the way that Utah has done it with broadranging types of NEPA that are programmatic in nature that can 

get us through those hoops. I do think that we need to reexamine 

NEPA from the standpoint of can we give local managers more discretion to use their various decision-making authority to get these 

important things done? 

When it comes to fire rehab, we can cut through all the red tape 

in the world to get things done. When it comes to fire prevention, 

we don’t seem to be able to get through the red tape. When it 

comes to management for conservation, then we get stalled out. So 

why can’t we use those same mechanisms to get the work done to 

keep a fire from occurring that it might take to restore from that 

fire? 

Senator LEE. Right. 

I have a friend who is fond of saying that when you are holding 

a hammer, and only a hammer, everything looks like a nail. It 

sounds like you are saying if people who are willing to recognize 

that there are tools other than hammers that one can use, one is 

willing to keep an open mind and if you can keep those people involved in the process, you can find more collaborative solutions. 

Mr. MOORE. Agreed. 

Senator LEE. Mr. Thompson, given the onerous litigation delays 

that we hear about with other restoration projects, including some 

collaborative restoration projects, one of the more impressive and 

unusual accomplishments of WRI is that it has dealt with very little litigation. How did you do this? How did you avoid it? 
37 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Senator Lee. 

I think, you know, the way we deal with this in Utah is we bring 

folks together at the beginning. We build large collaboratives on 

the ground, at the ground level. We build these collaboratives before we start writing the NEPA. We include all of the different 

stakeholders as we move through the NEPA process. There’s not 

always agreement. There’s not always unanimous consent on the 

things that we’re trying to do, but just the fact that we include 

those folks is extremely important. 

And then we write simplified NEPA documents and I think that’s 

an art that’s been lost in the federal agencies. NEPA documents 

have gotten so large and so unwieldy that they are difficult when 

it comes to the challenges that come. And we write very simple, 

very short documents that still cover all of the issues that are important. And, to date, I think we’ve had one challenge, and we were 

successful when that was litigated. 

Senator LEE. Is there anything we can do, anything that can be 

done with NEPA to make collaborative projects, like WRI, move 

forward more smoothly? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Certainly in the beginning of the initiative we 

had the categorical exclusions that allowed us to do 1,000-acre and 

less projects on federal lands when it came to issues that were 

fuels- and fire-related. Those categorical exclusions have since gone 

away. Those were heavily utilized by the watershed initiative and 

the return of those type of categorical exclusions would obviously 

be helpful. 

Senator LEE. When were those put in? When did they go away? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I believe they came in during the Bush Administration. And I think they were litigated and I’m not sure, timingwise, when they went away, but it’s been about a decade since 

we’ve had use of those. 

Senator LEE. How were they put in in the first place? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I believe they were part of the Bush Administration’s Healthy Forest Initiative. 

Senator LEE. Okay, so it was in a regulatory rather than a statutory change that brought that up. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I believe so, yes. 

Senator LEE. Okay, thank you. 

Senator Daines. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this important hearing. 

Ms. Weldon, it is good to see you here again today. Thank you 

for testifying. 

Anytime we have discussions about forest management I wish we 

could take folks here in Washington, DC, out to Montana and 

spend time around a table listening to our conservation groups. 

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation most recently—two weeks 

ago—was talking about the fact that we can no longer get in and 

do responsible forest management projects. Of course, timber is a 

renewable resource and it just continues to grow and grow and 

grow—we are not thinning. The habitat now is getting to be a point 

where it is not suitable for elk. 

Of course, when Lewis and Clark came out to Montana the elk 

were out in the plains, as were the grizzly bears, but with man 
38 

coming out West, we have moved those animals up in the mountains and they have adapted. But when you move them to the 

mountains they have to have grass to eat. When you have the thick 

forest, you do not get the sun down, get the grass sunk through the 

bottom because of the canopies, you do not have grass and you do 

not have elk anymore. 

So it is a serious issue. Never mind the issue of loss of our jobs 

from 30 active sawmills when I was a kid growing up in Montana 

down to eight. We see counties in Montana that have 90 plus percent of their lands that are controlled by the Federal Government, 

and they pay no taxes. Consequently, we have counties that are 

just dying on a vine, literally, back home because we have lost the 

revenue that used to come off our national forests for the jobs, revenue to support our infrastructure. 

We have county commissioners now, literally, having to jump on 

snow plows in the wintertime and plow the road to get the school 

buses through because we cannot afford to hire men and women to 

run the graters. 

It is truly a sad state and unfortunately, in my home State of 

Montana, our forests used to have loggers in there responsibly 

managing our forests. Now our forests are crawling with lawyers. 

Virtually every timber project, almost every one of them, gets litigated by extreme environmental groups after we have outstanding 

collaborative efforts. You bring everybody together—conservation 

groups, timber industry—and then we get litigated and the 

projects, oftentimes, are halted. 

I strongly support efforts to increase collaborative forest management. As you know very well, fire risk and other forest health challenges have no regard for these boundaries. I joined Senator Amy 

Klobuchar in sponsoring legislation to encourage partnerships between the Forest Service and state foresters to carry out crossboundary restoration projects, including on federal lands. Our bill 

codifies and expands existing initiatives and encourages the use of 

Good Neighbor Authority to achieve better forest management. At 

another hearing just last week, Chief Tidwell expressed agreement 

with these goals. I look forward to further discussing this bill with 

you and your colleagues at the Forest Service. 

I have a few questions here, and they will all be for Ms. Weldon 

today. I was struck just a few weeks ago when I brought Senator 

Pat Roberts, Chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry 

Committee, to hear some of these firsthand stories from folks on 

the ground up in Columbia Falls, Montana, up in the Northwest 

part of our state. We had a couple folks representing the timber industry there. They are all running a single shift, single shift. We 

had five or six members of the press there, and sometimes the 

story will get construed that suggests that the reason we are running single shift is because the demand for lumber is not there. 

Our timber folks reminded us that the demand has not been better. The constraint is logs. We would run additional shifts in our 

operations if we could get logs—we cannot get enough logs. The 

tragedy, we are having these meetings—we are staring at millions 

of acres of national forest, in some cases, dead and dying timber 

because of beetle kill—and we cannot get in there and harvest and 

responsibly manage our forests. We are shipping logs in from Can-
39 

ada. We are shipping logs in from hundreds of miles away from 

neighboring states because we cannot get logs and we are surrounded by them there in Montana. 

A question, Ms. Weldon. In your testimony, you highlight efforts 

by the State of Montana to accelerate forest management in our 

national forests, yet I am hearing concerns that Good Neighbor Authority is not working as effectively in Montana as it should because there are not enough NEPA-ready projects, even with the 

Farm bill’s expedited authorities at your disposal. Can you discuss 

the barriers the Forest Service faces to completing NEPA on these 

common-sense projects more quickly? 

Ms. WELDON. Great, thank you very much. 

And I just want to echo your sentiment, you know, my experiences in Montana, earlier, really showed the value and importance 

of folks coming together across the landscape and really making 

some great progress. 

So having NEPA-ready projects is a challenge and struggle. Part 

of that comes from the fact that, as you mentioned, there is quite 

a bit of litigation with our projects that we do get decisions on. And 

that has the effect of taking the workforce, the experts that would 

be working on that next NEPA project, and having them, you 

know, preparing for the litigation which takes quite a bit of time 

and energy. 

So what we’re working to do is still strengthen and build on collaboration for the results, but the region there has, in working with 

the states, looked at ways to increase our effectiveness in delivering NEPA. They have several pilots they’re working on that have 

us with NEPA strike teams who are concentrating their efforts to 

increase the amount of decisions that we can get made and do it 

in a way that allows that more certainty as far as the types of 

projects that will come out. 

So that’s an area that we fully acknowledged. I’ve had some good 

conversations with the states and other partners on our need, as 

Tyler was saying, for us to really relook at how we apply our categorical exclusions, how we look at putting larger areas within our 

analysis so that we can get decisions on larger landscapes and then 

continue to make sure we’re implementing every efficiency we can 

in delivering the NEPA process to get more work done. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you and beyond addressing what, I believe, is excessive process and as well as extremely excessive litigation, are there reforms to Good Neighbor Authority or that build 

on Good Neighbor Authority that would help the Forest Service 

and their state partners carry out forest restoration projects faster? 

Ms. WELDON. One big area of feedback we’ve been hearing, pretty much across the whole country, is around the restrictions that 

are in Good Neighbor Authority associated with the ability to share 

investments and work on road construction, reconstruction and 

maintenance that’s associated with delivering the work. So that’s 

one area that, as we look at a new Farm bill, we would like to address. 

Senator DAINES. And my last question, Mr. Chairman, could I 

ask another question? I know I am out of time here. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you, I have one more question for Ms. 

Weldon. 
40 

State foresters are required to develop State Forest Action Plans. 

Is the Forest Service consulting those plans in determining where 

to target fuels and forestry funding and has the agency leadership 

provided direction in that regard? 

Ms. WELDON. I’m happy to report that our regional forester, Leon 

Martin, and the state forester in Montana have, over the last couple of years, really increased their efforts to look at the best places 

to make shared investments as it relates to reducing hazardous 

fuels and changing fire behavior. 

The state forest action plans are a basis for that. They’re also 

being considered in the places that we are revising or updating our 

forest plans. And it’s a requirement within our 2012 planning rule 

to ensure that the information available, the strategic prioritization 

that’s occurred with state forest action plans and others, other 

type, are considered. So that is happening in Montana. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LEE. Are there any examples any of you can point to of 

successful instances of interstate collaboration? The collaboration 

we are discussing here is important. Can you think of any good examples of where this has worked well across state lines? 

Mr. Moore. 

Mr. MOORE. Senator Lee, certainly there are a number of examples of interstate collaboration. I do believe the Sage Grouse Initiative that is occupying that large sagebrush-steppe habitats that encompass 11 states where the greater sage-grouse lives, is a very 

good example of our attempts at interstate collaboration. 

Each state undertook to utilize the same science-based conservation objectives in designing unique state plans to address that large 

landscape across those various states. It was science-based, but 

then each state, working with the federal, private and state land 

managers there, came up with their own unique methods for dealing with what they felt were important to that state, relative to 

those landscapes, using that common science that was out there. 

That common science came from a number of teams that were 

interdisciplinary and multi-state, but ultimately the process of 

NEPA, itself, for getting those plans approved was worked forward 

at the states’ request to get this done, but failed as a collaborative 

at the end, in my estimation because once those state plans went 

forward, there was review in this town by some that modified those 

state plans for some states that created litigating and other issues 

associated with implementation we’re still dealing with today. But 

it is an example of where my Governor put a task force together 

in the state to design across the board with industry and private 

lands, NGO’s, a state plan that was honest to the science that did 

a great job of that—I co-chaired that effort for the Governor. And 

then it got spoiled at the end through the federal NEPA process 

and the fact that it was done actually well locally, but it got spoiled 

at the end from, frankly, a DC perspective, I’ll be honest with you, 

and we’re still trying to sort that out. And unfortunately, our local 

land managers on the federal side are somewhat constrained by 

those. 
41 

Senator LEE. Let me ask you, Ms. Weldon and Ms. Bail, what are 

some things we could do to streamline the NEPA process to make 

it not so burdensome? 

Ms. WELDON. I’ll start. 

One thing that we can do is, as I mentioned before, make sure 

that we’re making use of the categorical exclusions that we do 

have. We have quite a suite. Some of them came through with the 

Good Neighbor Authority and the Farm bill authorities for forestry. 

I think there’s a huge opportunity for us to look strategically in 

the context of projects that fit those goals; for example, for projects 

up to 3,000 acres, to reduce fuels, to do active forest management 

in places that there’s agreement from a priority standpoint. 

The other thing is for us to take a hard look at how we need to 

make sure we can get to a point where NEPA is doing what it 

needs to do from a legal standpoint and get away from, perhaps, 

many requirements that have built up over the years in a different 

era that may not be needed now. 

So we’re taking an active look at how to put our field folks, our 

practitioners and our decision-makers, in a place to really look at 

what is the, how do we meet that standard in such a way that allows us to do it more quickly, more efficiently and frankly, at a 

larger scale, as we’re saying before to get more work, decisions for 

work to get done and focus on the implementation. 

Senator LEE. Thank you. 

Ms. Bail. 

Ms. BAIL. In addition to what Ms. Weldon discussed, the Secretary has issued a memorandum that has started a process within 

the BLM for us to take a hard look at all of our processes, the land 

use planning process, the NEPA process, as well as how we comply 

with laws such as the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, 

et cetera. 

How can we work better among federal agencies, how can we improve our business practices and processes, and how do we do what 

we need to do in a transparent way and more effective way and 

more cost-effective way? 

So we’re looking at everything from, you know, protest processes. 

We’re looking at our internal policies. We’re looking at are there 

regulatory things that we can do? 

And then also would look forward to when we have our report 

that we are going to deliver to the Secretary on September 27th, 

having a conversation after that about how we can work together 

with this Committee or others who might be interested in moving 

forward on additional opportunities. 

So we are in the process and we are getting a lot of great minds 

in the room and talking with, you know, CEQ and other very important folks to get their insights as well as other agencies so 

that—and we’re very much focused on making the process better. 

We look forward to sharing what we find out here in the next few 

months. 

Senator LEE. Thank you. 

Senator Cortez Masto. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I appreciate it. 
42 

And apologies for the delay. I was in another committee meeting 

that was going on at the same time, but this issue is just as important to me, so I wanted to be here. And thank you for coming 

today. I know we changed the time of the hearing as well. 

I am from the great State of Nevada. Over 80 percent of the land 

is owned as public land. Watershed protection is so important for 

Nevada, and our federal partners are key, as you well know. 

Let me start off with Ms. Bail, with the BLM, because they are 

key partners for us in the State of Nevada. You mentioned that the 

BLM has partnered with the Nevada Departments of Wildlife and 

Conservation and Natural Resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and Newmont Mining Corporation on a sagebrush ecosystem conservation program for managing over 1.5 million acres 

of habitat. Can you elaborate on this partnership and why it has 

been so successful? 

Ms. BAIL. Thank you, Senator. 

And one thing that I believe is key to the success is that it was 

a willing landowner, voluntary effort, common interests and we’re 

using the state conservation credit system, you know, so this is the 

state looking to facilitate conservation, financial incentives for 

doing so and meet conservation purposes. 

So those efforts that are built, you know, from the ground up 

that build on common interests that are cross boundary and collaborative—all those are very much part of that success. And the 

fact that it is covering more than 1.5 million acres, I mean, there’s 

a lot of ground that can be covered there. And we’re very much 

looking forward to continuing to fulfill all of the opportunity that 

that provides. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. I mentioned that because I 

agree with you. I think particularly in Nevada, where you have 

from the ground up all the stakeholders coming together who may 

have differing opinions initially, but when they come together they 

try to find common ground. That should be respected. 

I am hoping that our federal partners, who are part of that conversation, and the leaders here are listening and respecting that 

and letting the states and those people that are on the ground living there know what’s happening, and listening to what their recommendations are. 

That’s true in Nevada for sage grouse because I know we’ve done 

the same thing. The Governor has brought together key stakeholders trying to address this issue. We have all found common 

ground, and we’d hope that would be respected. So I appreciate 

those comments. 

Talk to me about—and I am going to open this up to Ms. Weldon 

as well—wildfires. We have seen hot spots in Northern Nevada, 

particularly Northern California, and many parts of the West. This 

is going to be a difficult year for us, particularly because of cheatgrass. Can you talk a little bit about your thoughts on how we address that, particularly in an environment where we are cutting 

funding to the very resources that we are going to need, in both 

your agencies, to address these wildfires? 

Ms. BAIL. That’s where collaboration and partnerships become 

even more crucial. How can we work together, looking across fence 

lines, across boundaries and be strategic? There are some areas 
43 

that are already heavily infested with cheatgrass. Do we focus 

there or do we focus on protecting those areas that are still good 

habitats, still providing good livestock forage and, of course, protecting communities’ economic livelihoods? 

So having those conversations at the ground level and working 

together to determine where the best use of what funds we do have 

can be accomplished, you know, that’s very important. 

And then it takes a multiplicity of things. It’s continuing research on how do we treat cheatgrass? You know, there are new 

biocides. How can we create fuel breaks along roads to stop fires 

and give the firefighters a better chance? How can we use targeted 

grazing along roads to natural, you know, through grazing, create 

fuel breaks and also provide an opportunity for willing permittees 

to have another opportunity for forage? Working with rural fire 

protection associations, you know, our, the ranchers on the ground 

that are the first responders that can get to a fire more quickly 

than the federal resources can. 

So it’s using all of those tools—having the relationships, having 

the conversation, looking across boundaries—those are going to be 

keys for success because we’ve got a big problem out there, millions 

and millions of acres and we’ll keep chipping away at it. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

Ms. Weldon, do you want to add anything? 

Ms. WELDON. I think Ms. Bail said it very well. 

Those efforts to make sure that we’re expanding our ability to 

share skills, expertise, in front of this problem, you know, which is 

really critical on a number of fronts, especially with our ability to 

ensure that we can continue with the grazing permittees and their 

uses as well as protecting and concerning sage grouse habitat. So, 

I think Kristin covered it very well. 

Another thing to mention is around this, the great collaboration 

that’s occurring with wildfire through the National Cohesive Wildfire Strategy. And that is really calling on prioritizing to the very 

local level, identifying important resources and looking at maximizing the impact of what everyone can contribute to achieve outcomes for the landscape, but more importantly for good suppression 

efforts and being able to protect community and community values. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. Thompson, what is the biggest obstacle to preventing or that 

prevents your expansion, that prevents you from doing more from 

your effort, that is stopping your effort from expanding its reach? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Certainly funding is always an obstacle for us. 

We have, on average, about $30 million of requests each year. We 

can usually come up with about $15 or $18 million of that each 

year. So we have enough work on the ground. We have enough 

NEPA on the shelf and folks that are ready to implement shovelready projects. We just need the funding. We need more funding 

to help us get that in place. 

And then, the areas that we are struggling with NEPA and, you 

know, any resources that we can develop or that we can apply to 

the federal agencies to help them hire employees or find outside 

contractors or whatever needs to be done to help get more of that 
44 

NEPA on the shelf and do it at a large scale and provide areas for 

us to move into where we can complete restoration year after year 

after year. Those are the real bottlenecks that we’re struggling 

with. 

Senator LEE. When you look at an area that has been affected 

by a fire 20 years down the road, one that has had a rehabilitation 

effort, can you tell an immediate difference between those that 

have received rehabilitation and those that have not? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Absolutely. In this day and age where we have 

the destructive wildfires and we have species that have come from 

across the world and are invading these different wildfire areas, 

they do not set themselves on the trajectory that they have in the 

past. And so, when we come in and do this restoration work, it actually sets it onto a trajectory that we’d like to see it set on and 

that actually makes those areas more resilient and more resistant 

when wildfires come in. 

We’ve seen in Utah where we’ve had effective wildfire rehabilitation, fires starting in those areas or moving into those areas and 

slowing down, the flame lengths are reduced. They’ve gotten to the 

point where active firefighter resources can be moved in and fight 

those fires. And we’ve also seen that if those areas do burn, that 

they come back on their own, that they don’t need as much active 

restoration following a subsequent wildfire event. 

Senator LEE. So it’s a dramatic acceleration of the improvement 

of the recovery. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Absolutely. 

Senator LEE. Okay. Thank you. 

I have no further questions. 

Senator Cortez Masto, do you have anything else? 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Just a quick follow-up. 

I am curious, Mr. Moore and Mr. Thompson, as representing 

your states, what else can we be doing? What else should we be 

doing at the federal level to address your concerns and work with 

you at the state and local levels? 

Mr. THOMPSON. You know, the other issue that we deal with in 

Utah is that we need more involvement from the private landowners. So certainly anything we can do to reauthorize the Farm 

bill to give us more flexibility with it. 

One of the issues that we run into quite a bit is the income levels 

of a lot of our landowners—they’re not eligible for Farm bill funding and there’s still a lot of good patchwork private lands that still 

need restoration. We have to skip over those or we have to find 

state funding to put onto those private lands because they’ve hit 

either the income level or they’ve hit the Farm bill, I think it’s a 

$400,000 maximum over the life of the Farm bill. 

We run into that maximum a lot with private landowners too 

where, you know, we’re doing such large amounts of work and such 

big projects that those are quickly reached and we have to, kind 

of, skip over those landowners until the next Farm bill is authorized. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Okay. 

Mr. Moore, anything to add? 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Senator. 
45 

Certainly, I think that providing the resources necessary to get 

more private landowners involved in these multi-landowner landscapes that include the state lands, the private lands and the federal lands. Certainly those boundaries don’t, are meaningless, to 

the resources we manage out there, to a large degree. And those 

incentives, each state is unique in that. 

I am jealous of the State of Utah for the amount of legislative 

resources they get from their legislature. At the same time, we get 

a small amount but it needs to be augmented. We need to have the 

ability for resources to move transparently across boundaries and 

in some cases, state boundaries. 

Idaho needs to maybe move across with Nevada or Utah in those 

areas where we have common landscapes that abut each other 

without even thinking about it. Those need to be preplanned and 

pre-implemented. 

And certainly there are unique aspects, but we know how to do 

that when we fight a fire. Again, I go back to that. We haven’t 

quite figured out how to do that as effectively when we’re trying 

to prevent fires or manage the resources within each of those jurisdictions or land ownerships. I know we can do it. I’ve seen it work. 

So it’s just a matter of figuring out how to get that transparently 

done and incorporate those private landowners into the effectives 

because the landscapes they live on—the landscape, especially in 

our sagebrush-steppe habitats, they live on and they function in 

are their home regardless of the ownership. They have an important component with those wet areas down there for the biological 

resources I have responsibility for. But they depend on the uplands, both state and federal lands. And so, we’ve got to figure out 

how to combine all those together. I’ve got ranchers that move 

across state boundaries quite readily. They own property in all 

three states so they know how to manage across those and we need 

to incorporate them in. 

So that is one of the issues, I think, that collaboratives need to 

recognize and we need to go through. We have great collaboration 

among the state agencies across state boundaries. We’ve figured 

out how to maintain each entity’s unique management and state 

law responsibilities while achieving the common goal of the management of those resources for all of the people out there. We need 

to figure out how to do that with the federal lands as well. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. I agree. Thank you. 

Thank you for your comments, I appreciate it. 

Senator LEE. I do have a couple of other questions I would like 

to get into if that’s okay. 

Ms. Weldon, it occurs to me that Good Neighbor Authority does 

not extend to road repair or reconditioning of roads, things like 

that. Could this possibly be a good opportunity to expand Good 

Neighbor Authority? 

Ms. WELDON. Yes, we have gotten quite a bit of feedback in our 

first few years of implementing Good Neighbor Authority from the 

states that said this is another area that, if there were some adjustments made to relax the restrictions around road construction, 

rather road reconstruction and maintenance, that it would allow 

the more certain accomplishment of projects and expand the number of opportunities for that. 
46 

Senator LEE. Okay, thank you. 

And then, Mr. Thompson, what can you tell me about your seed 

bank? What’s unique about the Utah seed bank? 

Mr. THOMPSON. So, Utah is one of the only states in the West, 

I believe, that has its own seed warehouse. Our seed warehouse 

was built with funds from both the Forest Service and the BLM. 

It’s expanded to a capacity of about 1.5 million pounds. 

And one of the unique things in Utah is that the BLM has actually signed an agreement with Utah that makes our seed warehouse part of the BLM’s network. And so, BLM employees can utilize our seed warehouse as if it were their own. And what that does 

is that it really allows us to purchase seed together. It allows us 

to go out earlier because we’re utilizing that state procurement system that’s much more efficient than the federal system. 

We test the seed. We mix it together with the seed that they’ve 

purchased and the seed that we’ve purchased. It makes the whole 

operation much more efficient and has been a key part of Utah’s 

success. 

Senator LEE. And you use that substantially, I would imagine, in 

your rehabilitation efforts? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Absolutely. And in our regular efforts too. We 

put a lot of seed out just through our regular watershed restoration 

efforts as well. 

Senator LEE. Okay, great. 

Senator Cortez Masto, anything else? 

Any other member of the Committee? 

If not, I want to thank all of our witnesses, again, for being here 

today. Thank you for your testimony. It has been very helpful. 

Members will be free to submit questions for the record. The 

hearing record will be remaining open for another two weeks. 

The hearing stands adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:09 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 
(47) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
48 

Testimony of Dylan Kruse, Policy Director, Sustainable Northwest 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining 

Oversight Hearing on "Collaborative Initiatives: Restoring watersheds and 

large landscapes across boundaries through State and Federal partnerships" 

June 20, 2017 

Chairman Lee, Ranking Member Wyden, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today. My name is Dylan Kruse, and I am the Policy Director at Sustainable Northwest, as well as 

a member of the leadership team of the Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition. Sustainable Northwest 

is a regional non-profit located in Portland, Oregon working on forest, range, energy, and water-related 

initiatives to resolve conflict and maintain healthy working landscapes that are good for community and 

economic well-being. The Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition is a West-wide network of 

practitioners committed to collaborative, equitable, long-lasting solutions to natural resource challenges 

that are grounded in people and place. Both organizations are committed to enhancing the quality of life 

in rural communities and the continuation of a natural resource-based economy in the West. 

I'm pleased to describe a movement in the Pacific Northwest towards shared stewardship of our public 

and private lands. This movement is grounded not in conflict and interest group politics, but recognition 

of the value of collaborative, landscape scale restoration of our forests, rangelands, and waterways for 

ecosystem resilience, wildlife habitat, economic prosperity, and the well-being of rural and urban 

communities alike. It acknowledges that the challenges confronting these landscapes and communities 

are complex, integrated, and do not discriminate based on land ownership and boundaries. If we are to 

be successful in rising to meet them, we must embrace new partnerships, tools, and flexible approaches 

that reject artificial barriers and adapt to conditions on the ground. 

From the Ground Up 

My home state of Oregon has been a leader in fostering collaborative efforts to overcome disagreement 

in pursuit of durable solutions for ecological and socioeconomic well-being. In the fallout of the timber 

wars that plagued the Pacific Northwest in the mid-90s, we saw the emergence of some of the nation's 

earliest community-based collaborative partnerships, including the Applegate Partnership in 

southwestern Oregon, and the Lakeview Stewardship Group in southeastern Oregon. These groups 

established channels of communication and built trust between opposing interests at a time when 

resolution seemed impossible, charting a course toward sustainable resource management that 

provided consistent local economic opportunities. The results were landmark achievements that 

demonstrated what collaborative partnerships and consensus building could accomplish. By establishing 

a new restoration-based sustained yield unit on the Fremont-Winema National Forest, Lakeview was 

able to save Collins Pine, the last of five sawmills in the county. The mill still stands today, and supports 

a local stewardship workforce that partners with the now 20-year old Lakeview Stewardship Group to 

maintain "a sustainable forest that will ensure quality of life for present and future generations." 

These initial successes gave birth to new collaborative efforts across each of Oregon's eastern forests, 

including the Blue Mountains Forest Partners and Harney County Restoration Collaborative on the 

Malheur National Forest, and the Deschutes Collaborative Forest Project on the Deschutes National 

Forest. These groups have also played an essential role in overcoming crisis. When Malheur Lumber 
49 

announced that it was planning to shutter its doors due to a lack of timber supply in 2012, collaborative 

groups rallied, in partnership with Oregon's Congressional delegation and the U.S. Forest Service, to 

establish a 10-year stewardship contract to restore between 200,000 500,000 acres and triple the 

annual board feet targets on the forest. For the first time in nearly 15 years, the mill was able to add a 

second shift, both sustaining and increasing jobs at the largest private employer in the county. No forest 

management lawsuits have been filed on the Malheur National Forest in a decade. 

Today, Oregon and Washington are home to 33 forest collaboratives, including at least one group on 

each ofthe region's 17 national forests. What began as single-issue efforts in the region's dry national 

forests have now expanded to more complex endeavors across the entire Pacific Northwest, leading to 

all-lands management strategies that aim to overcome public ownership boundaries for holistic 

landscape scale restoration. This philoshophy has expanded to rangelands, culminating in 

comprehensive partnerships between landowners, local, state and federal governments, and nongovernmental organizations addressing issues like Sage Grouse conservation. Oregon and Washington 

support five Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration projects, seven Joint Chiefs' Landscape 

Restoration Partnership projects, and two Cohesive Wildland Fire Strategy pilot projects- a further 

testament to the region's leadership on collaboration and state and federal partnerships. 

The Role of the State 

A once radical concept- collaboration between federal land management agencies and diverse 

stakeholders to improve ecological health and increase economic opportunities in rural communities- is 

increasingly common. Natural processes, like fire and insect and disease outbreaks, operate regardless 

of property or management boundaries. Pooling public and private resources from across ownerships 

and investing long-term in local workforce development have never been more critical to natural 

resource stewardship or community well-being. 

Seizing on this momentum, the Forest Service began the Eastside Restoration Strategy in 2012 to 

improve the health of dry forests in eastern Oregon and Washington and contribute to the economic 

status of adjacent rural communities. To enhance the Forest Service's efforts and establish a greater role 

for the state in setting and achieving regional goals, the Oregon State Legislature and Oregon 

Department of Forestry launched the Federal Forest Restoration Program (FFRP) in July 2013. The 

program seeks to increase the pace, scale, and quality of restoration on Oregon's federal forests, and 

recognizes that coordinated efforts are needed for the achievement of restoration objectives. Coupled 

with the signature of a Master Stewardship Agreement under Good Neighbor Authority between 

Oregon and the Forest Service, this arrangement serves as a model example of how state-federal 

partnerships are leading to improved ecological, social, and economic outcomes on all lands. 

While modest in funding, the FFRP adopts an integrated approach to accomplishing structural change 

and efficiencies in federal lands decision-making and implementation frameworks. The program includes 

two components: 1) Competitive grants for facilitation, project design, science support, and technical 

assistance; and 2) a "State-Federal Implementation Partnership." Most of the funding is directed to the 

second component a partnership approach in which the state invests in data collection and pre-sale 

layout on federal lands to accelerate and achieve restoration goals, timber supply, and efficiencies in 

planning, implementation, and administration. Much of this work is also conducted by seasonal Oregon 

Department of Forestry fire personnel, who would normally be dismissed at the end of fire season. 

Expressed outcomes of the Oregon Federal Forest Restoration Program include: 

• Increased capacity of collaborative groups to reach Zones of Agreement. 
50 

• Larger projects and an overall increase in acres- analyzed through NEPA. 

• Increased acres treated both commercially and non-commercially. 

• A decrease in the timeframe between signed Decisions and the offering of timber sales. 

• Higher quality data to inform environmental analyses. 

• Reduced costs and time to conduct planning as required to meet the National Forest 

Management Act and NEPA. 

• Increased watershed restoration projects. 

• Increased jobs derived from forest restoration. 

Recent results from Oregon's state-federal partnership have been impressive: 

• A 16% increase in restoration related jobs and a 14% increase in federal timber harvest have 

occurred across eastern Oregon since the program's inception. 

• In the past two years, ODF employees assisted with marking unit boundaries and tree marking 

on 54 federal timber sales on eight National Forests and one BLM District. This coordination 

resulted in presale layout on 275 million board feet (MMBF) of timber statewide, including an 

increase in the annual timber target by 10 MMBF on the Willamette National Forest; a moist 

mixed-conifer forest characterized by a recent history of conflict over timber production. 

• Three supplemental project agreements using Good Neighbor Authority, with three more 

currently in development, including timber sale administration and watershed restoration. 

Beyond direct program outcomes, there is also a noticeable shift in collaborative engagement and 

influence on the NEPA process in eastern Oregon's dry forest ecosystems: 

• Since 2013, 63% of acres with signed Forest Service NEPA decisions have incorporated input 

from local collaborative groups. 

• Since 2009, the average NEPA decision area with collaborative involvement is 24,000 acres, and 

just 10,000 acres without collaborative involvement. 

• Collaboration has contributed to a 45% increase in annual average of acres with signed NEPA 

decisions between 2012 and 2015 compared to 2009 2011. 

Observations to Consider 

Federal investment is essential: State-federal and public-private partnerships are innovative approaches 

to leveraging funding, knowledge, and ideas; yet there is simply no substitute for the substantial 

baseline funding for our federal land management agencies and the services they provide. Without 

consistent and increased investments, we will not be able to capitalize on newfound capacity and 

implement all-lands restoration prescriptions. 

The roots go deeper: The increased involvement and investments from states in collaborative forest and 

watershed restoration have accelerated our ability to implement management prescriptions, utilize new 

authorities, and identify efficiencies. However, state and federal government agencies are not the only 

actors in this partnership, and are certainly not sufficient in their ability to meet the entirety of 

landscape need. As evidenced in Oregon and Washington, state engagement in federal partnerships 

often follow and integrate with the actions of third party entities and collaborative organizations. 

Sustained investment in, and the presence of this local community capacity, is often as important (if not 

more so) than the role of state agencies in shared stewardship. 

Manage expectations: There is clear evidence that local collaborative groups, community and regional 

non-profits, and state agencies can enhance and leverage state planning and investments to increase 
51 

the pace, scale, and quality of restoration on federal forests and rangelands. However, the federal 

government retains decision-making authority on these landscapes, and is the primary funder for 

implementation of management prescriptions. Collaborative groups and partnerships can build social 

license and trust to get more work done in an efficient and timely manner, but they do not provide legal 

sufficiency for decision-making. 

We need to deliver: A partner in Washington recently remarked that planning without implementation 

is a recipe for cynicism. The last decade has seen a tremendous investment in and from local, state, and 

regional collaborative entities that have established a new paradigm of shared stewardship to function 

at the pace and scale needed to improve landscape health. We must continue to utilize the full suite of 

investments, partnerships, and new authorities at our disposal to implement landscape scale plans and 

achieve desired restoration goals. Sustaining this work and bringing it to scale can only be achieved with 

clear forward progress that rewards the investments from all stakeholders in the planning process. 

Recommendations for Continued Success and Scaling Up 

Getting the job done: Implementation of the landscape level planning and collaborative agreements 

that have been facilitated in recent years is imperative, but will only be accomplished with appropriately 

scaled investment from Congress. This includes full funding for collaborative large landscape initiatives 

and programs that cut across ownership boundaries, leverage private resources, and achieve integrated 

outcomes. However, the suggested funding levels for the Department of Interior and Department of 

Agriculture in President Trump's FY 2018 budget propose a dire and unnecessarily austere vision for our 

federal lands and rural communities. If adopted, these funding levels would jeopardize the ability of 

state and federal agencies to implement commercial and restoration activities on public lands. 

Let's use the tools we have: There is no shortage of policies, authorities, and tools that facilitate 

working in partnership across ownership boundaries. The 2014 Farm Bill alone permanently authorized 

the Stewardship Contracting Authority, Good Neighbor Authority, state insect and disease designations 

with an accompanying Categorical Exclusion, and designation by description and designation by 

prescription in timber sales. There is significant room for creativity, flexibility, and innovation within 

existing policies, programs, and authorities to unlock efficiencies and improved outcomes. Rather than 

rushing towards further policy reform, it is best to first use the tools we have, develop a track record of 

performance, and then make amendments as necessary. Our partners are eager to use these resources. 

Recommendations: 

• Sustain land management agency funding levels as included in the FY 2017 omnibus 

appropriations bill: In particular, this should include full funding for collaborative, all lands 

management programs, including the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, 

continued investment in the Joint Chief's Restoration Partnership, and support for 

implementation of state Sage Grouse conservation plans. 

• Funding for State and Private Forestry programs: Beyond partnerships and collaborative 

management models, the federal government plays a critical role in funding state forestry 

programs that support forest health, urban and community forestry, forest stewardship, and 

volunteer & state fire assistance. The continued ability of state agencies to work on 

collaborative all lands restoration depends on adequate investment in these program areas. 

• Laboratories of innovation: States and third parties possess unique skill sets, authorities, or 

4 
52 

fewer regulatory barriers that may allow them to take initial risks and identify efficiencies for 

improved land stewardship. To the maximum extent practicable under law, states and 

collaborative groups should be empowered by state legislatures and Congress to utilize new 

management authorities and pilot strategies for project planning and decision-making. 

• Avoid collaborative overdependence: Collaboration is most effective as an organic process 

originating and operating at the local scale. Congress should avoid actions that formalize 

collaborative structure and design, and we recommend against the inclusion of a collaborative 

process as a sole justification for streamlined environmental review reform. 

Administration and Land Management Agencies: 

Setting the stage: We now have multiple examples of situations where collaborative groups have 

achieved agreement on innovative and necessary management prescriptions, only to have 

implementation limited or stalled by outdated administrative and regulatory requirements. This 

oversight should be made more flexible where possible, or amended and updated if needed. 

Consistency and transparency: Even in a constrained funding environment, our federal partners do an 

excellent job of meeting diverse performance measures, and working with collaborative and state 

partners to capture efficiencies and additionality. However, providing results and a consistent program 

of work for local businesses and the stewardship workforce is essential to sustain partnership and 

investments from non-federal entities. If adequate resources do not exist to implement collaborative 

agreements and priorities, agency staff must inform community and state partners of limitations so that 

they might pursue alternate mechanisms for match contributions or seek implementation efficiencies. 

Commitment to partnership: The past decade has seen a demonstrable shift in federal agencies' 

embrace of collaboration in the project planning and decision-making process. As we seek to increase 

the pace and scale of restoration, federal agencies should adopt collaborative recommendations to the 

maximum extent possible, especially when consensus can be attained. State- federal partnerships also 

require agencies to move beyond bureaucratic constraints and seek creative solutions for enhanced 

outcomes. This means fostering a culture where agency staff are empowered and encouraged to take 

risks and are rewarded for behavior that results in innovation, efficiency, and enhanced results. 

Recommendations: 

• Timely and efficient completion of the U.S. Forest Service forest plan revision process. 

• Lift existing, and limit the use of future hiring freezes for agency positions that are critical for 

project planning, contracting, and implementation. 

• Consider joint, boundary spanning positions between state and federal agencies that break 

down administrative silos and leverage staff and financial resources. 

• Include regulatory agencies in the collaborative process as landscape scale projects are 

developed and proposed, as opposed to on the back-end of project design. 

• Create landscape-level strategic plans for collaboration that set priorities, focus resources, and 

clarify desired outcomes. 

• Adopt the use of a "Handover Memo" as recommended by the Planning Rule Federal Advisory 

Committee to help line officers learn quickly about existing collaborative processes. 

• Incorporate adaptive management and monitoring components in long-term landscape scale 

restoration initiatives to sustain the trust of partners and build further zones of agreement. 

0 

5