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


                    EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL 
                      YEAR 2024 BUDGET REQUEST.
                      FOR THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE

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

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                              BEFORE THE
                              
                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-20

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]      


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov               
	                         or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
        
                               __________
        
                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
52-160 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO			Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA			Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 	
Tom McClintock, CA			    CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ				Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA			Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS		Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA			Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL			Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR		Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID			Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN			Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT			Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI				Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL				Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT			Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO			Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR				Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA				Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU				Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX			Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY

                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

                       TOM TIFFANY, WI, Chairman
                     JOHN R. CURTIS, UT, Vice Chair
                     JOE NEGUSE, CO, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                     Katie Porter, CA
Tom McClintock, CA                   Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Russ Fulcher, ID                     Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 
Pete Stauber, MN                         CNMI
John R. Curtis, UT                   Mike Levin, CA
Cliff Bentz, OR                      Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Jen Kiggans, VA                      Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Jim Moylan, GU                       Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                              -----------                                
                               
                               CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Wednesday, April 26, 2023........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Tiffany, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Wisconsin.........................................     1
    Neguse, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Colorado................................................     4

Statement of Witnesses:

    Moore, Randy, Chief, National Forest Systems, U.S. Forest 
      Service, Washington, DC....................................     6
        Prepared statement of....................................     8
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    11

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Westerman

        MIT Report...............................................    22

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Tiffany

        CRS Chart................................................     4

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Lamborn

        NEPA Language............................................    28

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Bentz

        NFFE News Release........................................    36
        Forest Service Message by Chief Moore....................    37


 
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUDGET 
                  REQUEST FOR THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE

                              ----------                              


                       Wednesday, April 26, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                     Subcommittee on Federal Lands

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m. in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom Tiffany 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

    Present: Representatives Tiffany, Lamborn, Fulcher, 
Stauber, Curtis, Bentz, Moylan, Westerman; Neguse, Kamlager-
Dove, Levin, and Leger Fernandez.
    Also present: Representatives Boebert, Gosar, Hageman, 
LaMalfa, and Rosendale.

    Mr. Tiffany. The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will come to 
order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the 
President's Fiscal Year 2024 budget request for the U.S. Forest 
Service.
    I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Arizona, 
Mr. Gosar; the gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa; the 
gentlewoman from Colorado, Mrs. Boebert; the gentleman from 
Montana, Mr. Rosendale; and the gentlewoman from Wyoming, Ms. 
Hageman, be allowed to participate in today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other 
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record 
if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM TIFFANY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

    Mr. Tiffany. The focus of our hearing today is on the 
budget priorities of the Forest Service for Fiscal Year 2024. 
This is a continuation of the important work this Committee has 
conducted this month as we review the budget requests of 
Federal agencies under our purview.
    Despite the catastrophic wildfire crisis affecting the 
West, including the districts of many members on this dais, 
Committee Democrats did not hold a single oversight hearing of 
the Forest Service's budget last Congress.
    We are pleased to have before us today the Chief of the 
Forest Service, Randy Moore, who is appearing before our 
Committee for this first time since he assumed this important 
role almost 2 years ago.
    Chief Moore, your appearance before this Committee is long 
overdue. But with Republicans in the Majority, I can assure you 
there will be many more invitations coming your way as we look 
to work with you to confront the myriad of challenges facing 
our nation's forests.
    As we begin our discussion today, I think it is important 
to dispel some of the rhetoric leveled against Republican 
budget proposals that seek to restore some fiscal sanity to our 
Federal spending. Democrats on this Committee have inaccurately 
alleged Republican proposals seek to decrease wildland fire 
management funding. This could not be further from the truth.
    Republicans have proposed securing funding at Fiscal Year 
2022 spending levels. This is important because Fiscal Year 
2022 wildfire funding for the Forest Service is actually $247 
million higher than this Fiscal Year. When you include the 
Department of the Interior, Republicans would be giving the 
agencies an increase of more than $340 million, compared to 
Democrats' Fiscal Year 2023 levels.
    Further, the Limit, Save, Grow Act, which we will be 
debating this week on the House Floor, would extend the fire 
suppression cap adjustment past its current expiration date in 
2027. This will ensure certainty for the agencies so they will 
not have to resort to fire borrowing.
    And let's not forget who set our current funding levels: 
Congressional Democrats and the Biden administration. That is 
right. Congressional Democrats cut wildfire appropriations this 
year by over $340 million. So, when you hear a lot of talk 
today about draconian 22 percent cuts and the devastating 
effects they will have, perhaps you will ask yourself why 
Congressional Democrats cut hazardous fuels appropriations for 
the Forest Service by 33 percent this year.
    This unfounded criticism does, however, highlight the 
flawed logic of assuming we can continue to throw money at this 
problem without meaningful regulatory reforms and expect any 
difference in our catastrophic wildfire crisis.
    The Forest Service's Fiscal Year 2024 budget is requesting 
$9.7 billion, a nearly 18 percent increase over Fiscal Year 
2023 enacted levels. The agency also received over $10 billion 
through the IIJA and Inflation Reduction Act. Yet, the Forest 
Service budget is only proposing an additional 400,000 acres 
treated this year, a mere 10 percent increase. We have 
repeatedly heard from the Forest Service there needs to be a 
paradigm shift, and the agency must double or quadruple the 
amount of acres it treats. A 10 percent increase in response to 
the deluge of funding this agency has received is not the 
paradigm shift the West needs.

    These results are hardly a surprise. No amount of money is 
going to overcome the fact that right now it takes an average 
of 3.6 years to even begin a mechanical treatment on our 
national forests, due to burdensome NEPA regulations. 
Prescribed burns are even worse, taking an average of 4.7 years 
to complete NEPA. Democrats have stayed in lockstep with 
extreme environmentalist groups, and refused to offer any 
substantive reforms to improve the management of our national 
forests.

    For the small reforms we are able to give the Forest 
Service, such as emergency authorities or categorical 
exclusions for fuel breaks, they are not being utilized by the 
agency at the pace and scale needed. Committee Republicans 
stand ready to fulfill our responsibility to the American 
people, and usher in a new phase of accountability and 
transparency for the Forest Service as we pursue innovative 
solutions to reverse the tide against this historic crisis.

    Today's hearing is an important step on this front, and I 
look forward to discussing the agency's plans to actively 
manage our forests, suppress wildfires promptly and carefully, 
pay wildland firefighters in a fiscally responsible manner, and 
increase timber production.

    I want to once again thank Chief Moore for being here 
today.

    We look forward to hearing your testimony.

    Before I recognize Ranking Member Neguse for his opening 
statement, I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into 
the record a table from the non-partisan Congressional Research 
Service showing Congressional Democrats and the Biden 
administration had the following budget cuts this year: $93.3 
million decrease for Department of the Interior wildfire 
appropriations; $247.2 million decrease for Forest Service 
wildfire appropriations, including a $155.4 million decrease 
for hazardous fuels reduction; $340.6 million decrease for 
overall Forest Service and Interior wildfire spending.

    Without objection, so entered.

    [The information follows:]

                               CRS TABLE
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                                            

    Mr. Tiffany. I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. 
Neguse, for his opening statement.
    I know you are perhaps a bit tired this morning, but thank 
you for your work on Rules last night.

    Mr. Neguse. Well, I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I enjoyed 
participating in Rules yesterday until about 3 in the morning, 
but I am also glad to be here in this Committee today.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE NEGUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

    Mr. Neguse. Chief Moore, it is good to see you again. I 
really enjoyed working with you when I was Chairman of this 
Subcommittee, and welcoming you to Colorado on numerous 
occasions. It is good to see you back here in person in 
Washington.
    I have some remarks, and I had intended to, and I still 
will, compliment you on the work that you have done and, I 
think, the hard work that folks in the Forest Service are doing 
each and every day on behalf of the American people. But you 
have come to this Committee at an interesting time, as you 
might have gathered from my friend, the Chairman's, opening 
remarks. And this has little to do with the Forest Service, and 
everything, unfortunately, to do with the politics of 
Washington, DC. I am surprised because some of the same 
arguments that I heard in Rules last night are the same 
arguments I am hearing this morning.
    Republicans put forward a budget, and they bragged about 
how this budget is cutting spending, aggressively cutting 
spending. They are proud of that. The moment, the moment, there 
begins to be an outcry from the public about a variety of the 
different draconian cuts that this budget imposes, they 
disclaim that their budget does anything of the sort. It is 
amazing to me. I was dumbfounded by it last night in Rules, and 
I am as incredulous this morning as I guess I was yesterday 
when this happened, because they will put forward a budget that 
cuts the Forest Service, and then tell you that it doesn't.
    And I am eager to hear from you, Chief Moore, about the 
ways in which their budget proposal, this default on America 
bill that they have proposed, would impact the Forest Service. 
We don't have to debate about opinions about the legislation. 
We have the language.
    We will hear from the Chief as to how that language, if 
enacted, which it won't be. This bill, it is dead on arrival in 
the House, certainly dead on arrival in the Senate, it won't be 
signed by the President. But in any event, as an esoteric 
matter, we will hear from the Chief about the ways in which 
their proposal will impact the Forest Service. I am confident 
that it will not be along the lines that our Chairman 
described.
    I also will say I find it rather rich that the same 
individuals who voted against the $1.6 billion investment in 
fuel reduction, $1.6 billion in the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law that Mitch McConnell and a half dozen Republican Senators 
voted for, and that I believe not a single Member, maybe 1 or 
2, of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in this 
Committee voted for, these same Members now have the audacity 
to question you, Mr. Moore, and your team about the fuels 
reduction projects, by the way, that are happening in their own 
states, in their districts.
    The last time I saw you in person was in Colorado. I 
welcomed you to Colorado as we were excited to announce the 
first infusion of $33 million in hazardous fuels reduction 
projects in the Arapahoe Roosevelt in my district, as well as 
the Pike San Isabel National Forest, a portion of which was in 
my prior district, and the rest, of course, in my colleague 
from Colorado Springs, my friend Mr. Lamborn's district.
    I don't get it. And maybe, again, I mean, I haven't been in 
Congress that long, so this is just how Washington works, I 
guess. But it is puzzling to me that you have a bipartisan bill 
that invests in hazardous fuels reduction, important 
investments. My colleagues vote against it. The projects are 
happening in their district. Nonetheless, they propose now a 
bill to cut the budget of the very same agency responsible for 
implementing those projects that they claim are so necessary 
for the health of their forests and the well-being of their 
constituents. I just don't get it.
    I have limited time left. I had long remarks prepared but, 
unfortunately, deviated a bit. I will simply say to you, Mr. 
Moore, that we are grateful for your service. I think you have 
done an exceptional job.
    I am grateful for the hard work of the Forest Service folks 
in my district on the White River National Forest, Routt 
National Forest, Arapahoe Roosevelt. You know the supervisors 
there, some of the hardest working people in the United States 
who work really closely with our team. They are under-funded. 
They need more resources. And I am glad to see that the 
President's budget contemplates the kind of investment in 
workforce that we are going to need to ensure that the projects 
that we all agree are necessary can ultimately come to 
fruition.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

    Mr. Tiffany. Yes. Thank you to the Ranking Member for your 
opening remarks, and we will now move on to witness testimony.
    Let me remind the witness that under Committee Rules, he 
must limit his oral statement to 5 minutes, but his entire 
statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, please press the ``on'' button on 
the microphone.
    We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn 
green. At the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn red, and I 
will ask you to please complete your statement.
    I would now like to introduce Mr. Randy Moore, who is the 
Chief of the United States Forest Service.
    Chief Moore, you are now recognized. First of all, welcome 
once again, and you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF RANDY MOORE, CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEMS, U.S. 
                 FOREST SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Moore. Chair Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and 
members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify 
before you today. I appreciate the opportunity to share how the 
Forest Service is putting America's money to work.
    The Fiscal Year 2024 request focuses on three primary 
areas: modernizing the Wildland Fire Management System; 
confronting the wildfire crisis; and ensuring equitable access 
to and benefits from the National Forest System.
    The people we serve deserve nothing less than to see the 
value of their money at work for their benefit. National 
forests and grasslands cover about 193 million acres. Some 180 
million people in over 68,000 communities rely on these lands 
to capture and filter drinking water. Our work contributes to 
over 373,000 jobs and $40.3 billion to the GDP. We work with 
tribes, state and local governments, private landowners, and 
many others across the country to keep forests and grasslands 
healthy and safe.
    Today, America's forests face dire threats from wildfire, 
climate change, insects, and disease, especially in the West. 
This is an emergency in many places, and we are enticing and 
acting with a sense of urgency in collaboration with 
communities and our partners. Our top priority is to reduce 
wildfire threats by safeguarding communities and critical 
infrastructure, creating healthy, resilient forests.
    Through our Wildfire Crisis Strategy, we have ramped up to 
treat the right places at the right scale using an all-lands, 
all-hands approach. This past January, we announced investments 
of $930 million in 21 high-risk landscapes in the West, 
benefiting roughly 200 communities and many other resources 
that people value.
    In addition, we have awarded nearly $200 million in 
Community Wildfire Defense Grants toward 100 projects to 22 
states and 7 tribes. Recent investments by Congress gives us a 
historic opportunity to take bold and strategic action. We are 
working to do just that, to put every dollar to good use.
    We are grateful to Congress for investing foundational 
funding to do this work. Sustained execution, though, depends 
on continued Federal investments. The proposed Fiscal Year 2024 
budget responds to this need. All of our work to reduce 
wildfire risks become increasingly important in the face of 
another upcoming busy Western fire season. We will have 
approximately 11,300 firefighters and a full array of aircraft 
ready to respond safely to any and all fires. We will fully 
engage with state, local, and tribal partners ready to respond 
with us.
    In support of our firefighters, this budget also calls for 
a $1.4 billion investment in salaries, health and safety, and 
well-being for all of our firefighters. A suite of new actions 
will permanently increase pay, improve options for housing, and 
provide better care and support for physical and mental health. 
It also increases the number of firefighters, and we need the 
help of this Committee to authorize this proposal.
    While firefighters represent the backbone of our wildfire 
system, we also need active and aggressive land management to 
confront the wildfire crisis. This budget invests $300 million 
in hazardous fuels treatments. It supports execution of 
wildfire crisis strategy. It targets investment in burned area 
rehabilitation for $56 million to expedite recovery from 
wildfire. It supports use of the latest research and grants to 
universities to support educational and technical assistance 
for innovative wood products.
    The national forest and grasslands belongs to every 
American. Every person should feel a personal invitation and a 
connection to these lands. We remain committed to removing 
barriers so all people can enjoy National Forest System lands 
and services, particularly tribal and underserved communities. 
We continue to focus policies, accountability, and training to 
ensure an equitable, respectful, and harassment-free workforce 
and work environment for all of our employees.
    We know what is at stake if we don't address the effects of 
climate change and the wildfire crisis: the health of our 
forests and communities, clean water, a vibrant wood products 
industry, and jobs and resources that Americans depend on. We 
need to act now if we are going to meet these challenges. So, 
thank you, and I am grateful for your support, and I welcome 
any questions that you may have.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Randy Moore, Chief, USDA Forest Service
    Chair Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today to testify on the 
President's fiscal year (FY) 2024 Budget request for the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service.
    The fiscal year 2024 President's Budget for the USDA Forest Service 
discretionary appropriations totals $7.4 billion for base programs and 
$2.3 billion for the wildfire suppression cap adjustment (in the 
Wildfire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund). The fiscal year 2024 
request focuses on three primary areas: modernizing the wildland fire 
management system; confronting the wildfire crisis; and ensuring 
equitable access to and benefits from the National Forest System.
    The investments highlighted below reflect services the Forest 
Service delivers through work on National Forests, partnerships with 
State, Private, and Tribal landowners, and our Research and Development 
mission area. These investments enable the Forest Service to restore 
long-term forest health and resiliency across landscapes the American 
people rely-on while ensuring equitable access to the resources on 
National Forest lands. Alongside our partners, the Forest Service will 
continue to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires to communities in 
FY 2024 through investments in the highest priority landscapes 
identified within the Wildfire Crisis Strategy. The Forest Service will 
maximize every dollar invested into our agency, making every dollar 
work for the American people. The people we serve deserve nothing less 
than to see the value of their money at work for their benefit.
The President's FY 2024 Budget Request for Specific Priorities to 
        Support Focal Areas

    The following investments align with and enhance the agency's 
efforts to modernize the wildland fire management system:

     $1.4 billion for Wildland Fire Management Salaries and 
            Expenses: Investing in our wildland firefighting workforce 
            is a matter of national security as critical 
            infrastructure, homes, communities, structures, and natural 
            resources are at grave and growing risk of catastrophic 
            wildfire. The FY 2024 budget funds a permanent increase in 
            pay for the wildland firefighter workforce, providing a 
            more livable wage, enhancing recruitment, and supporting 
            retention. Specifically, this request includes:

            -- $180 million for increasing base pay for federal 
        wildland firefighters to ensure that this crucial workforce 
        does not face a pay cliff at the end of this year;

            -- $69 million to support cost of living increases for FY 
        2024;

            -- $259 million for increasing federal firefighting 
        capacity (an estimated 970 additional federal firefighters and 
        personnel) to expand our ability to address the wildfire crisis 
        and reduce the strain on our current workforce;

            -- $10 million for vital health and well-being assistance 
        to more comprehensively support our wildfire firefighter 
        workforce;

            -- $50 million to address the urgent need for wildland 
        firefighter housing through necessary maintenance and repairs 
        of Forest Service housing units that will support our 
        recruitment, hiring, and retention efforts.

     $323 million for Hazardous Fuels Reduction: To mitigate 
            wildfire risk on 4.2 million acres in high priority and 
            high-risk firesheds, building on hazardous fuels funding 
            from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation 
            Reduction Act and aligned with the agency's 10-Year 
            Wildfire Crisis Strategy.

    The following investments ensure that national forests and 
grasslands continue to provide experiences, services, and products to 
the American public by focusing on the restoration, enhancement, and 
resilience of the Nation's forests and grasslands:

     $56 million for the Burned Area Rehabilitation: to build 
            on capacity created with the $65 million per year seed 
            money from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to 
            rehabilitate burned areas and free up existing funding for 
            more proactive forest health work.

     $94 million for Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness: to 
            increase support of critical recreation operations, 
            planning, services, and improvements, with particular 
            emphasis on creating welcoming, sustainable, and equitable 
            recreation opportunities for all Americans with a focus 
            toward underserved and Tribal communities.

     $50.5 million for Vegetation and Watershed Management: to 
            support healthy and resilient watersheds and landscapes, 
            sustain the production of clean and abundant air and water, 
            assist with meeting the Administration's climate goals, and 
            contribute to healthy and productive communities and Tribal 
            Nations.

     $45 million for Minerals and Geology Management: to locate 
            and prioritize orphaned oil and gas wells for remediation 
            and the inventory, environmental analysis, and clean-up of 
            mine reclamation sites.

     $7.8 million for Grazing Management: to support post-fire 
            restoration, provide for strategic incentives to grazing 
            permittees, and build vibrant rural economies.

     $55 million for Forest Health Management: to ensure 
            healthy forests and functional landscapes on federal and 
            non-federal lands in support of the conservation priorities 
            of the Administration.

     $80 million for Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 
            Program: to invest in communities and regions with a 
            collaborative, common purpose in reducing wildfire risk and 
            improving forest health and resiliency.

     $1.7 billion for National Forest System Salaries and 
            Expenses: to support the agency's 10-Year Wildfire Crisis 
            Strategy as well as critical non-fire programs, which have 
            decreased in funding over time as wildland fire response 
            needs escalated.

    Further investments ensure that the Forest Service relies on the 
latest science and technology to deliver results on the ground and for 
the people:

     $502 million for Information Technology Capabilities: to 
            continue modernization of our Information Technology 
            systems that allow the public to better access our 
            services, sustain emergency communication systems, and 
            provide our workforce the tools they need to carry out our 
            conservation mission safely and efficiently.

     $72 million for Zero Emissions Vehicles: included across 
            several program funding requests to invest in replacing 
            vehicles within the agency fleet and to provide for 
            employees and visitors with charging infrastructure.

     $349 million for Forest and Rangeland Research: to 
            continue investments in research priorities, with a focus 
            on climate change-related research including reforestation, 
            carbon accounting, and fire and fuels research.

     $6 million for USDA Climate Hubs: to accelerate science 
            production and technology transfer that will aid management 
            agencies, private landowners, and agricultural producers 
            adopt scientifically sound climate adaptation practices.

Confronting the Wildfire Crisis

    The Forest Service's paramount focus continues to be combatting the 
threat and impact of destructive wildfire to our nation's communities, 
critical infrastructure, forests, rangelands, water supplies, and 
wildlife. Changing environmental conditions have lengthened fire 
seasons into fire years and worsened wildfires across the West. 
Expanding development into the wildland/urban interface (WUI) 
increasingly puts more homes into fire-prone landscapes and increases 
the challenge and complexity of wildfire suppression and fuels 
reduction work. Most wildfires that cause significant damage to a large 
number of homes and other structures are human caused; 97% of wildfires 
threaten homes; and almost one-third of American homes are within the 
WUI.
    The Forest Service has a historic opportunity now, between the 
investments from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Inflation 
Reduction Act, and our annual appropriations, to implement solutions at 
a large scale. We are now entering our second year of carrying out our 
10-Year Wildfire Crisis Strategy. The Wildfire Crisis Strategy aims to 
increase science-based fuels treatments by up to four times previous 
treatment levels, especially in those areas at highest risk. By working 
in the right places at the right scale, our treatments can reduce 
wildfire risk and better protect communities, infrastructure, and 
natural resources while helping wildland firefighters respond to 
wildfires safely and effectively.
    The Forest Service cannot succeed in this alone. The highest risk 
firesheds are typically in multiple landownerships. The Forest Service 
will continue to strengthen our long-standing work and relationships 
with Tribes, States, local communities, private landowners, and other 
stakeholders to adapt lessons learned into a coordinated and effective 
program of work as outlined in the 10-Year Wildfire Crisis Strategy. 
Through government-to-government consultation with Tribes, expanded 
partnerships and co-stewardship, and broader community support, the 
Forest Service will increase the use of prescribed fire, fuel 
treatments, and the management of unplanned ignitions to reduce long-
term wildfire risks. Fortunately, we have decades of experience working 
through collaborative partnerships based on common values and shared 
goals across shared landscapes as set out in the National Cohesive 
Wildland Fire Management Strategy.
Ensuring Equitable Access to and Benefits from the National Forest 
        System

    The Forest Service will continue to invest in actions that create 
broad and efficient access to the vital resources our forests and 
grasslands provide. This effort is twofold. First, we must ensure that 
those who rely on these services and benefits can access those benefits 
safely. Therefore, we are committed to improving the operation and 
maintenance of our extensive infrastructure portfolio that includes 
buildings, dams, communication sites, recreation sites, roads, trails, 
and bridges. Second, to carry out this work effectively, the Forest 
Service is committed to continued intentional internal and external 
engagement with Tribal Nations whose ancestral homelands are within or 
adjacent to federally managed public lands, and communities that live 
by, visit, and depend on national forests. The Forest Service is 
committed to identifying and removing barriers to access Forest Service 
programs and services for historically underserved communities. This 
will be done by integrating equity-centered criteria in the design, 
funding, and prioritization of all policies, programs, and activities 
to center equity considerations as part of the decision process. The 
Forest Service will also work to advance mission critical work, remove 
barriers and boost economic opportunities through improved access to 
contracts, grants and agreements, and permits.
Leveraging Additional Funding Authorities

    Along with the tools and investments proposed in the FY 2024 
Presidents Budget, the Forest Service will leverage funding within the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and the Inflation Reduction Act 
(IRA) to confront the wildfire crisis, create new markets and 
technology for wood products, promote economic development, and restore 
forest health and resiliency through partnerships and collaboration 
across landscapes.
    Through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), Congress provided 
a $1.4 billion down payment that greatly assists in putting our 
Wildfire Crisis Strategy into action with investments on ten landscapes 
in eight Western States (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, 
New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington). Through work on these landscapes 
and others, we completed treatments on 3.2 million acres nationally in 
2022. We also accomplished these treatments in 118 of the 250 high-risk 
firesheds identified in the Wildfire Crisis Strategy. This work was 
accomplished despite numerous challenges including workforce capacity 
and high post-fire workloads from historic wildfire activity across the 
country the past several years. The work on these acres directly 
reduced risk to communities, infrastructure, and critical watersheds.
    The Inflation Reduction Act provides the Forest Service an 
additional $1.8 billion for hazardous fuels funding in the WUI. With 
IRA funding, we recently selected 11 additional landscapes for 
treatment in seven Western States (Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, 
Oregon, Utah, and Washington). Combined with the initial BIL investment 
landscapes, our actions will span nearly 45 million acres across 134 of 
the 250 high-risk firesheds in the western U.S., with a total 
investment to date of $930 million on 21 landscapes in 2023. These 
investments will help reduce the risk of wildfire to at-risk 
communities, Tribal lands, critical infrastructure, utility corridors, 
and public water sources. We listened to our partners, the public we 
serve, Tribes and many others regarding what mattered most to them, 
where opportunity is, and where challenges remain. Their feedback and 
our experience on these landscapes helped us identify both challenges 
to implementation and enabling conditions for future success.
    Through Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA) (P.L. 116-152) funding 
for the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund, the 
Forest Service continues to repair and upgrade vital infrastructure and 
facilities in the national forests and grasslands. The GAOA also 
permanently funds the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), with 
which the Forest Service invests in conservation and recreation 
opportunities in public and private lands through the Forest Legacy 
Program and Federal Land Acquisition.
    Forest Service projects will support about 3,500 jobs and 
contribute $350 million to the GDP on an average annual basis over the 
5-year authorization of the GAOA National Parks and Public Land Legacy 
Restoration Fund. In FY 2024, the Forest Service proposes $94.3 million 
for the Forest Legacy Program, $123.9 million for Federal Land 
Acquisition, and $285 million for the National Parks and Public Land 
Legacy Restoration Fund. The FY 2024 project lists are included in the 
FY 2024 Budget request.
    In closing, the President's FY 2024 Budget request for the Forest 
Service proposes a landmark investment in wildland fire, establishes 
funding priorities for risk-based wildfire reduction, and improves 
overall access and utilization of our National Forests System. The FY 
2024 Budget request underscores our commitment to long-overdue 
investments in our wildland firefighter workforce to provide them with 
the compensation that they deserve, along with critical investments to 
support health and wellbeing, and expanded options for housing. The FY 
2024 Budget also highlights the importance of restoring and creating 
resilient landscapes, improving infrastructure, and removing barriers 
to access. We look forward to working with this Subcommittee to fulfill 
the President's goals and our key responsibilities for the long-term 
benefit of the Nation's forests and grasslands, and for all Americans. 
I will be glad to answer your questions.

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to Randy Moore, Chief, United States 
                             Forest Service

Mr. Moore did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate 
deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

Forest Management

    Question 1. During the hearing, you mentioned that the Forest 
Service is using categorical exclusions for roughly 85 percent of the 
forest management work being done, which you said was roughly 4,000 
categorical exclusions. Can you please provide statistics that shows 
which categorical exclusions are being used, and how many times each 
categorical exclusion has been used in the last 5 years?

    Question 2. How much of the direct work at the national forest 
level is planning and assessment to include the preparation of 
environmental review documents under NEPA?

    Question 3. How much did the Forest Service spend last year on 
planning or environmental review costs for meeting the requirements of 
applicable laws generally? How much did the agency spend on direct work 
at the national forest level?

    Question 4. How many staff hours did the Forest Service spend last 
year on planning or environmental review costs for meeting the 
requirements of applicable laws? How many staff hours did the agency 
spend on direct work at the national forest level?

    Question 5. The persistent drought, particularly out West, has only 
exacerbated the wildfire crisis. How does the ongoing drought and 
current drought mitigation efforts impact forest management and 
hazardous fuel reduction?

    Question 6. There are many federally funded data and analytic tools 
to determine how drought and other climate-related factors can be 
mitigated. Drought mitigation can help reduce the severity and 
frequency of catastrophic wildfires.

    6a) How is the Forest Service utilizing tools such as the U.S. 
Drought Monitor and other products produced by the National Drought 
Mitigation Center (NDMC)?

    6b) Are there additional data products federal partners could 
provide to help the Forest Service proactively deploy drought 
mitigation planning efforts?

    Question 7. Last fiscal year, despite historic investments, the 
Forest Service sold roughly 2.9 billion board feet of timber, which is 
down over 10 percent compared to pre-pandemic levels.

    7a) What steps is your agency taking to increase the amount of 
timber harvested on Forest Service lands so that we can return to pre-
pandemic levels?

    7b) If wildfires are the issue is reaching pre-pandemic levels of 
timber harvesting, how quickly is the Forest Service converting those 
timber sales to salvage sales? Are you re-doing completed NEPA work to 
convert these sales post-wildfire?

    Question 8. What effect are litigation and threats of litigation 
having on the Forest Service's ability to combat wildfires and improve 
the health of our forests?

    Question 9. The Forest Service's budget justification states the 
agency is aiming to treat 4.2 million acres, which is only a 10 percent 
increase compared to last year's target. The ``Confronting the Wildfire 
Strategy'' calls for treating two to four times the amount of acres the 
agency currently treats, which far exceeds this 10 percent increase.

    9a) What are the barriers that are preventing the Forest Service 
from scaling up its hazardous fuels treatments?

    9b) Is the Forest Service on track to meet its goal of treating 20 
million additional acres, as outlined in the 10-year strategy?

    9c) How many acres should the Forest Service be treating this year 
to be on track to meet the target of 20 million additional acres 
treated?

    Question 10. Chief Moore's testimony states several times that 
engagement with Tribal nations and reducing hazardous fuels on a 
landscape scale are a ``paramount focus''. However, the FY 2024 budget 
includes a $3 million cut to Landscape Scale Restoration projects. 
Regarding the $3 million cut, your own budget justification states, and 
I quote: ``This decrease would reduce the number of projects with 
Tribes, States, and other eligible partners by 12 projects and result 
in reduced land treatment and restoration activities on non-Federal 
lands, based on prior year performance data. It would reduce planned 
funding for Tribes by $1 million, which is one of ten key priorities 
identified in the USDA Equity Action Plan. Past performance of projects 
supported by the Landscape Scale Restoration program have demonstrated 
success in reducing wildland fire risk, improving forest conditions, 
and mitigating impacts from insects and disease and leveraging public 
and private resources.''

    10a) How does the Forest Service reconcile its apparent commitment 
to Tribal nations with budget cuts that directly support tribal work?

    10b) How is this cut consistent with the ``Confronting the Wildfire 
Strategy'', which states that the agency must increase its landscape-
scale work by four times?

    10c) Does this cut represent a trend to the Forest Service using 
mandatory funding to supplant, not supplement, discretionary funding?

    Question 11. Why is the Forest Service requiring approval for 
proposals to use ``Emergency Action'' authority from the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law from the National Office, USDA, and the White House? 
Is this consistent with approvals that are granted during wildfires to 
use emergency actions?

    Question 12. During the hearing, Chairman Tiffany brought up 
discrepancies in the Forest Service's reports for hazardous fuels 
reduction treatments between regional and national Forest Service 
reports. For example, the Forest Service's initial landscape 
investments progress summary reported that 132,423 acres had been 
treated in the 4FRI priority landscape in Arizona last year. However, 
according to the regional Forest Service's reports on 4FRI (four fry), 
only 88,634 acres were treated last year.

    12a) How does the Forest Service account for this discrepancy of 
over 43,000 acres?

    12b) This discrepancy between the Forest Service's own published 
documents suggests the agency is inflating progress toward the 10-year 
strategy by nearly half. Is the Forest Service aware of other 
discrepancies in priority landscapes between the numbers being reported 
at the regional level versus the national level?

    12c) What methodology is the Forest Service using to ensure acres 
are being reported accurately to track progress in the 10-year 
strategy?

    12d) When measuring progress toward the 10-year strategy, is the 
Forest Service recording any acres more than once if multiple 
treatments are conducted on the same parcel of land?

    12e) If the Forest Service were to only record each acre once, 
regardless of how many treatments were completed on that acre, how 
would the reporting for each of the initial landscape investments 
differ from what the Forest Service published last year?

2023 Wildfire Year

    Question 13. Our forests are worse off today than they ever have 
been. In the last 5 years alone, we have lost over 38 million acres to 
wildfires, roughly 14 million of which were a part of the National 
Forest System. The long-term wildfire outlook remains bleak, with 
roughly 89 percent of all Forest Service land identified as having the 
potential for wildfires to ignite and spread to communities.

    13a) How has the recent flooding in the West has affected National 
Forest System lands?

    13b) What is the Forest Service's outlook on what we should expect 
from the 2023 wildfire season?

    13c) Can the Forest Service provide an update on the number of 
wildland firefighters the agency predicts it will need for the 2023 
wildfire year?

Technology

    Question 14. Chief Moore, the Forest Service is advancing forest 
management actions using innovative financing, new technology detection 
systems, and even software programs for NEPA compilation. Please share 
what you are doing to support these important steps to modernize your 
work in the woods.

    Question 15. Advanced camera systems connected to artificial 
intelligence are now being used on a few forests to better detect 
wildfires and monitor controlled burns. This technology promises to 
better protect communities, conserve our forests, and reduce the cost 
of wildfire suppression. What are you doing to deploy this technology 
on National Forests this year and beyond?

    Question 16. Can you please provide an update on the Request for 
Information/Sources Sought Notice entitled ``Interagency Wildland Fire 
Personnel and Asset Tracking for Increased Situational Awareness'' that 
was released in November 2022?

``Old Growth and Mature Forests''

    Question 17. In light of the new inventory of mature and old-growth 
forests, can you please provide information about how many acres of NFS 
land that meet your new mature and old-growth definition framework have 
burned in wildfires in the last 10 years?

    Question 18. Why was the inventory of mature and old-growth forests 
limited to Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service forests, and 
not to the other federal agencies that manage forests like the National 
Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service?

    Question 19. How much Forest Service staff time was used to develop 
the mature and old-growth inventory?

    Question 20. Why is it important to manage forests to have a 
diversity of age classes?

    Question 21. Can you please explain the importance of early 
successional forests?

    Question 22. Is the term ``mature forest'' a recognized term in the 
scientific practice of forestry?

    Question 23. Why is the Forest Service moving forward with and 
Advanced Notice of Public Rulemaking for mature forests when your 
report on old growth acknowledges that there is no scientific 
definition or consensus regarding what a mature forest is?

    Question 24. Following up on a statement I made during the hearing, 
in the Forest Service's report on old growth, the report states that 
``narrative frameworks'' are going to inform the ``policy and practice 
of forest management'' for old growth. The report also includes the 
following quote:

        ``The role of place attachment or identity, meaning ``the 
        symbolic importance of a place as a repository for emotions and 
        relationships that give meaning and purpose to life'' may also 
        be particularly relevant in our understanding of how people 
        relate to and value old-growth forests.''

    Is the Forest Service planning to manage old growth forests based 
on vague concepts like ``place identity'' instead of scientific forest 
management practices?

Great American Outdoors Act

    Question 25. Since the passage of the Great American Outdoors Act, 
the Forest Service has received $235 million per year in National Parks 
and Public Lands Legacy Restoration Funds to address the deferred 
maintenance backlog. Yet in that amount of time, the Forest Service 
backlog has actually risen by roughly $2.4 billion dollars. What do you 
attribute this sharp increase in your maintenance backlog to?

    Question 26. How have inflation and supply chain issues impacted 
your ability to complete deferred maintenance projects on budget and on 
time?

    Question 27. The Park Service has shared that they were previously 
using a methodology to calculate deferred maintenance and repairs that 
did not align with industry standards. Does the Forest Service's 
methodology to calculate deferred maintenance align with industry 
standards?

    Question 28. Does the Forest Service have any plans to update its 
methodology for tracking deferred maintenance?

    Question 29. What are the Forest Service's projections for what the 
total deferred maintenance backlog will be at the end of FY2023? Is the 
agency projecting it will increase or decrease from the current $7.6 
billion?

    Question 30. How is the Forest Service defining ``equitable 
access''?

    Question 31. We've heard concerns that the Forest Service is not 
using deferred maintenance funding provided under GAOA to upgrade 
buildings that could be used as housing for firefighters because of 
internal guidance that GAOA funding only be used on recreation.

    31a) Why isn't the Forest Service using GAOA funding to address 
deferred maintenance that could improve housing options for 
firefighters?

    31b) Has the Forest Service conducted an inventory of existing 
structures that could be converted into firefighter housing if deferred 
maintenance was addressed? If not, does the Forest Service plan to 
conduct such inventory?

    31c) How many existing structures could be used as housing for 
firefighters if deferred maintenance needs were addressed? What would 
be the total cost?

Wood Products Utilization

    Question 32. This budget highlights that Forest Service Research 
and Development arm has studied the ``effects of management actions and 
wildfire on the accumulation and loss of soil carbon, and the carbon 
storage effects of augmenting soil carbon with biochar.'' Can you share 
more about the research the Forest Service has conducted on biochar?

    Question 33. Do you believe biochar and similar technologies could 
help the Forest Service remove more excess fuels?

    Question 34. What can Congress do to incentivize the use of 
adoption of mass timber from materials on National Forest System lands?

Southern Border

    Question 35. How much of the southern border is Forest Service 
land?

    Question 36. In the Department of the Interior's FY 2024 budget 
justification, they identified illegal methamphetamine production as an 
issue on Federal lands.

    36a) Has the Forest Service also identified illegal methamphetamine 
production on its lands?

    36b) If yes, how much methamphetamine is being illegally produced 
on NFS lands and what environmental and safety impact is this having on 
NFS lands?

    36c) If yes, what is the Forest Service doing to eradicate illegal 
methamphetamine production?

    Question 37. Approximately how many wildland fires are ignited each 
year due to activities associated with illegal border crossers?

Energy Development

    Question 38. A private company has been working for over a decade 
in my district to develop the work plan and secure required federal and 
state permits for an underground mining operation adjacent to the 
Ouachita National Forest. Most of surface infrastructure will be 
located on privately held land. This project will provide jobs, spur 
economic development, provide a domestic resource for steel production, 
and have minimal surface disturbance. The draft Environmental 
Assessment (EA) is currently under review by the United States Forest 
Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). I am concerned 
with how long the review process is taking. The draft EA was first 
submitted to the USFS, BLM, and Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 
and Enforcement (OSMRE) in April 2021. I understand the Forest Service 
is currently deciding if a Forest Plan Amendment is the next step.

    38a) When will you have a decision?

    38b) Will you please provide an update on where the process 
currently stands?

    38c) Will you commit to providing the necessary USFS personnel and 
resources to meet timelines to review this permitting application?

Wildland Firefighters

    Question 39. On March 30, the United States Department of 
Agriculture, along with Department of Interior and Office of Personnel 
Management, transmitted to Congress its federal wildland firefighter 
management legislative proposal.

    39a) How much does the Forest Service believe the proposal will 
cost in its first year, presumably fiscal year 2024, and over 10 years?

    39b) How much is specifically for firefighter pay in the first 
year, presumably fiscal year 2024, and over 10 years?

    39c) Did the Forest Service conduct an analysis to compare the 
proposed federal new pay table to western states' firefighter pay? Will 
the new proposed pay for federal firefighters exceed state pay? Please 
provide a state-by-state breakdown of this data.

    39d) In my district in Arkansas, many Forest Service employees are 
deployed out West during wildfire season. They are often referred to as 
militia members. These temporary assignments of employees are crucial 
to supporting the operations of the Forest Service. Does this proposal 
include pay increases for so called `militia members?'

    Question 40. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL, P.L. 117-58) 
provided funding for wildland firefighter mental wellbeing and directed 
the Secretary of Agriculture, with the Secretary of the Interior, to 
establish programs for wildland firefighters ``to recognize and address 
mental health needs.'' Current updates to committee staff indicate a 
comprehensive plan for this funding has yet to be established.

    40a) When will you have a public plan for the BIL funding for 
firefighter mental wellbeing?

    40b) How are you engaging current and past wildland firefighters in 
developing tools, resources, and programs?

    40c) The President's Budget asks for an additional $10 million for 
firefighter health and well-being. Why is additional funding being 
requested? What will this money be used for that the first round of 
funding has yet to cover?

Telework Policies

    Question 41. On April 10, 2023, President Biden signed Dr. Gosar's 
bill into law ending the COVID-19 public health emergency and the 
Office of Management and Budget released guidance to Departments to 
bring employees back into the office. Have you issued guidance 
directing Forest Service employees to return to the office?

    41a) Will you commit to issuing guidance to Forest Service 
employees to return full-time to in-person work? If yes, when will you 
issue this guidance?

    41b) Please tell the Committee how many Forest Service employees 
worked in person at the Forest Service on April 26, 2023 and what 
percentage worked virtually from home.

    Question 42. Your budget requests a $52 million increase in your 
Information Technology budget to support Forest Service employees 
working from home. During the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
hearing of the Forest Service Budget Request, you indicated that this 
line item would likely need to be addressed in light of the Office of 
Management and Budget's guidance to ``substantially increase in-person 
in the office.'' Should we expect to see an updated Budget Request that 
excludes this request for additional telework IT funding?

Fire Suppression Policies

    Question 43. The Forest Service Budget is seeking a $854 million 
increase for wildland fire management for this year, which would be a 
40 percent increase from last year. How would this funding level be 
impacted if you were to lose the ability to use fire retardant?

    Question 44. The contracting process from the US Forest Service for 
aviation firefighting vendors is more challenging than ever, with 
current contracts expiring early in the 2nd quarter of 2023, and new 
contracts under heavy protests and status of their awards unknown. Can 
you speak to this growing concern of no coverage secured for 2023 and 
what the USFS intends to do to solve this urgent matter?

    Question 45. In recent years the US Forest Service has adapted the 
Lowest Price Technically Acceptable award methodology, or LPTA for 
bidding vendors. This process takes no consideration or weight for 
historical performance, industry experience, references, equipment 
quality/modernity, or safety record. On the contrary, forthcoming USFS 
contract requirements are requiring vendors to invest more in upgrades 
to their aircraft than ever with no certainty of any revenue, amidst 
the battle to win in the LPTA format. How can the USFS continue to ask 
for such advancements in aircraft, experience, and equipment but 
restricted their awards to be weighted solely on price in an extremely 
challenging economy?

             Questions Submitted by Representative LaMalfa

    Question 1. What steps is USFS taking to address the ever-
increasing presence of illegal marijuana grow sites on federal lands?

    Question 2. Does Director Moore agree that illegal marijuana 
cultivation and smuggling pose huge health and safety risks for both 
the environment and the public?

    Question 3. Is the USFS currently undergoing any remediation or 
cleanup efforts at marijuana grow sites? If so, where are those actions 
taking place?

    Question 4. Is the USFS studying or tracking the environmental 
harms of illegal marijuana grow sites and in particular on the 
pesticides used? To what extent have illegal pesticides been found at 
these grow sites?

    Question 5. My colleague Rep McClintock and I sent a letter to you 
last year urging you to end the Let Burn policies. Is the USFS now 
implementing aggressive, initial attack strategies to extinguish 
wildfires detected on National Forest System lands not later than 24 
hours after such a wildfire is detected in a way that is demonstrably 
different than previous years?

    Question 6. Can you, as chief of the US Forest Service, commit to 
returning to the original language and intent of SRS Titles II and III 
(15% of annual SRS payments) regarding county allocations? This would 
allow counties and school systems that are locked into allocations 
based on 2011 or older SRS funding levels, to update their SRS 
allocation formulas to better meet their funding needs.

    Question 7. Do you believe the increase in funds for staffing is 
sufficient, and what is your plan to scale up staffing levels to meet 
the goal of treating 20 million acres in 10 years?

    Question 8. To address staffing shortage concerns, to what extent 
is the USFS looking outward to expanding volunteer engagement? Are 
there certain tasks that the USFS could rely more heavily on volunteer 
groups and other partners to complete?

         Questions Submitted by Representative Leger Fernandez

    Question 1. This year New Mexico was blessed with snow that will 
help us address the drought. But those in the Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon 
Fire burn scar are scared of the subsequent floods and debris flow that 
will wipe out more roads, destroy more pasture, and flood more homes. I 
understand the Forest Service has begun seeding and mulching work on 
the Forest Service land in the burn scar.

    Chief Moore, what is the Forest Service doing to coordinate with 
other agencies to make sure all lands--including private lands that the 
forest burnt--are rehabilitated to protect homes and property from the 
flooding we know is coming this spring?

    Question 2. I appreciated Secretary Vilsack's response to my recent 
letter on the need for sustained funding solutions for Taos Pueblo's 
management of the Blue Lake Wilderness.

    In the letter, the Secretary notes the USFS' work with the Pueblo 
through the Tribal Forest Protection Act program and on the Pueblo 
Ridge Project as part of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Reserved Treaty 
Rights Lands program.

    From your perspective, what other USFS programs could potentially 
support Taos Pueblo's work to effectively manage the Blue Lake 
Wilderness and its other lands, more broadly?

    Question 3. Chief Moore, thank you for your response to the letter 
I signed last year with my colleagues in the New Mexico Congressional 
Delegation on the need to protect the Upper Pecos Watershed. In your 
response, you state the Southwestern Region is evaluating the potential 
risk of mineral development in the Upper Pecos Watershed and whether 
our current laws and regulations are adequate for its protection.

    Would you please describe the steps involved in said evaluation, 
its proposed timeline, and the entities involved?

    In evaluating the risks to the Upper Pecos Watershed, I urge you to 
engage with all local stakeholders, including relevant tribes, local 
governments, acequias, land-grant mercedes, and landowners and users, 
such as farmers, ranchers, hunters, and anglers.

    Question 4. Given the Congress' current work on the Farm Bill, 
would you please provide any legislative recommendations the USFS has 
to better serve tribes, such as improvements to the Tribal Forest 
Protection Act?

    Question 5. How is the USFS' FY24 budget request addressing the 
reforestation needs of burned areas, which in New Mexico increased by 
nearly 1 million acres last year alone?

    Question 6. How does the USFS' FY24 budget address the need for 
treatments on the private lands that are embedded within or surrounding 
National Forests in the very same places identified as top priority in 
the Wildfire Crisis Strategy?

    Question 7. In light of the Hermit's Peak Calf/Canyon Fire, please 
describe how USFS protocols for informing and engaging with the public 
about proposed or planned burns have changed? Do you plan to continue 
those updated protocols indefinitely? Is the USFS only using these 
updated protocols in New Mexico, or nationwide?

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for that opening statement, Chief 
Moore.
    The Chair will now recognize Members for 5 minutes for 
their questions, and I would like to start with a few questions 
here.
    Chief Moore, the Forest Service's Fiscal Year 2024 budget 
includes a $3 million cut to landscape-scale restoration 
projects, while increasing electric vehicle charging 
infrastructure by over $60 million.
    Regarding the $3 million cut, your own budget justification 
states, and I will quote here, ``This decrease would reduce the 
number of projects with tribes, states, and other eligible 
partners by 12 projects, and result in reduced land treatment 
and restoration activities on non-Federal lands, based on 
prior-year performance data. It would reduce planned funding 
for tribes by $1 million, which is one of 10 key priorities 
identified in the USDA Equity Action Plan. Past performance of 
projects supported by the Landscape Scale Restoration Program 
have demonstrated success in reducing wildland fire risk, 
improving forest conditions, and mitigating impacts from 
insects and disease, and leveraging public and private 
resources.''
    Why is the Forest Service prioritizing funding for electric 
vehicles over wildfire mitigation efforts for tribes?
    Mr. Moore. Congressman, I am not sure that we are 
prioritizing the use of electric vehicles over any other part 
of our programs. I think what we are trying to recognize is a 
growing trend that we are seeing across America, and that 
growing trend, based on visitors that we are seeing coming to 
national forests, is that more of our visitors are having 
electric vehicles, and this is an opportunity to provide them 
the ability to plug in when they visit, particularly our more 
popular sites. So, it is a small opportunity to try to address 
all people's connection to the land, which I mentioned in my 
opening statement.
    Mr. Tiffany. But, Chief, wouldn't you say you can tell a 
person's priorities by how they spend their money?
    You are spending 20 times as much on electric vehicle 
charging infrastructure, which is basically a gas pump. And we 
normally have businesses purchase their own gas pumps, and here 
we are going to spend this on the electric vehicle gas pump, 
and reduce the amount of spending for landscape restoration 
projects, including for tribal entities, which I thought was a 
priority.
    Mr. Moore. It is a priority. And Congressman, you mentioned 
in your opening statement that hazardous fuel reduction is less 
than last year. But last year, our enacted amount was about 
$207 million, and this year it is really at $322 million. So, 
we are not seeing a reduction in hazardous fuel treatments, we 
are seeing an increase in our opportunities to treat more of 
these acres on the landscape.
    Because we have all recognized that we have an emergency 
situation out there, and we need to be doing more work rather 
than less work, so our efforts are really aimed at increasing 
the amount of work that we are doing on these landscapes.
    Mr. Tiffany. When we met recently, we talked about a bill 
called the ACRES Act, where we want to get an accurate amount 
of what hazardous fuels reduction is going on by the Forest 
Service. And I will give you a quick example.
    The Forest Service's Initial Landscape Investments Progress 
Summary reported 132,000 acres have been treated in 4FRI 
priority landscape in Arizona last year. However, the regional 
Forest Service reports only 88,000 acres were treated last 
year. How do you account for the discrepancy of over 43,000 
acres in that situation? Where you are counting the higher 
number, the regional people are sending a lower number.
    Mr. Moore. The data I have, Congressman, is that we are 
actually treating almost 4 million acres per year. In fact, 
last year we treated about 3.7 million acres. When I look at 
what our plans are this year that we are in, and I have met 
with all the regional foresters, we are planning to treat about 
4 million acres this year. And we meet monthly. In fact, as 
soon as this meeting is over, I am going to be going to 
Colorado to meet with all of the regional foresters and my 
deputy chief to look at our ability to treat more of these 
acres. But so far, they have projected to be at 4 million acres 
treated this year.
    Mr. Tiffany. If I could ask one more question before my 
time is up, it is really concerning that the agency is 
inflating progress here when you see these discrepancies. Last 
fiscal year, the Forest Service sold roughly 2.9 billion board 
feet of timber, which is down over 10 percent compared to pre-
pandemic levels. What steps are you taking to increase the 
amount of timber harvested on Forest Service lands?
    First of all, is it acceptable to continue to see this 
decrease to you?
    Mr. Moore. Am I allowed to answer? We ran out of time.
    Mr. Tiffany. You go ahead and answer it, sir.
    Mr. Moore. So, for context, over the last 3 years we have 
been right at about 3 million board feet a year. In 2022, we 
were at about 2.8 million. We increased that last year to about 
2.9. This year, we are looking to be somewhere around 3.4 
billion board feet. Our goal is to get at 4 billion board feet 
by 2027, I believe.
    So, we are on an increase in the amount of timber that we 
are planning to produce, and that is a part of what I was 
mentioning earlier. We have added accountability in the system, 
and that is one of the reasons I meet with all of the senior 
line officers in the agency on a monthly basis to look at what 
those challenges are, and what is it that we need to do to 
eliminate those challenges.
    Mr. Tiffany. Is the reduction acceptable?
    Mr. Moore. No, and I am not seeing a reduction.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, OK. We will do some follow-up questions.
    Mr. Moore. May I follow up, Congressman?
    There are many things that get in the way of what we are 
able to do. Fires sometimes burn through areas where we have 
already gone out and did sale prep. Litigation is another one 
of those areas that sometimes limits our ability to accomplish 
what our targets and goals are. So, there are other things that 
get in the way of us accomplishing that. But the work on the 
ground is occurring, but there are other things that get in the 
way of actually getting to the bottom line.
    Mr. Tiffany. I recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Levin.
    Mr. Levin. I am not Mr. Neguse.
    Mr. Tiffany. Welcome.
    Mr. Levin. It is good to be with you. Thank you, Chairman 
Tiffany.
    Before diving into my questions, I wanted to note something 
exceptional that happened in last night's Rules Committee 
meeting that you may have missed. After promising repeatedly 
that he wouldn't change the Default on America Act, as we are 
calling it, before it hit the Floor, Speaker McCarthy did make 
concessions and ended up altering the underlying bill. But 
notably for our Committee's work, there is now a proposal to 
strike the $200 million that Congress passed in the Inflation 
Reduction Act to carry out deferred maintenance projects at the 
National Park Service.
    This change is particularly hypocritical to me, given the 
Committee hearing that we had here last week with NPS Director 
Sams, where the Majority highlighted the need to address NPS's 
deferred maintenance backlog, something that I agree with. And 
I think if we are all serious about protecting our public 
lands, we should be investing in addressing the maintenance 
backlog, as well as other key priorities of our land management 
agencies, not rolling back the funding that we have already 
provided to maintain our public lands.
    So, I urge everybody interested in this, let's push back 
against those funding cuts. Let's make sure that that doesn't 
wind up in any final package here. With that, let me turn to a 
question of wildfires.
    Chief Moore, I want to thank you for your testimony today. 
I think you know that California over the last 5 years has 
suffered from seven of the largest fires in our state's 
history, including the August Complex Fire, Dixie Fire, 
Monument Fire, Caldor Fire, Beckwourth Complex Fire. They 
collectively burned over 2.5 million acres, destroyed or 
damaged over 30,000 structures. And we know that we are not 
just preparing for a fire season, but for fires year-round.
    This risk is only going to continue to increase. The U.N. 
Environment Program recently found the likelihood of extreme 
wildfires is expected to increase up to 14 percent by 2030 and 
up to 50 percent by 2100 as a result of both climate change and 
changes in land use. And due to this ever-increasing risk, 
Federal land management agencies such as the U.S. Forest 
Service have had to spend significantly larger portions of 
their budgets on fire suppression, which can limit their 
ability to fund critical restoration and management activities 
that can improve ecosystem health and resilience.
    I am very pleased to see the Forest Service has taken a 
comprehensive approach to wildfire management through this 10-
year wildfire crisis strategy. And based on the historic 
investments in the Inflation Reduction Act, I am glad that your 
Fiscal Year 2024 budget request seeks an additional $2.97 
billion for wildland fire management, an operational increase 
of $674 million, including by boosting funding for restoration 
and management activities. I am very grateful for your 
continued prioritization of wildland fire management funding, 
as we know that an ounce of prevention can be worth a pound of 
cure.
    Chief Moore, recognizing that wildfire risk continues to 
grow, how is the Forest Service working with partners, 
particularly the scientific community, to define project goals 
and track outcomes for its wildfire crisis strategy in a way 
that we can clearly communicate to the public?
    Mr. Moore. Thank you for the comments, Congressman. If I 
can try to kind of describe the situation we find ourselves in, 
you had mentioned as you closed your question there about 
outcomes. We are reporting outputs, and we are looking at acres 
achieved, amount of timber cut.
    And I think perhaps it may be time to look at a different 
way of reporting, because we are trying to be transparent. We 
want to be transparent to Congress. And there is a question on 
the table that basically says you are double-counting and 
triple-counting some of the same acres treated, and that is not 
our intent. So, I would submit perhaps it is time for us to 
look at a different way of reporting in terms of outcomes on 
the landscape and communities protected as a potential outcome 
of our treatments.
    We have also indicated that there is a lot of value in 
these public lands, and there is a lot at risk right now 
between an explosion of homes in the wildland urban interface. 
There is climate change. Depending on where you are on this 
issue, it is taking place. We have disease and insects that are 
affecting our forests. And we have an infrastructure that is 
based on the 100 years of how we have operated and how we have 
utilized some of the material off national forests.
    So, our job is not to take away from that traditional 
infrastructure, but how do we add to this existing 
infrastructure to utilize the material that we have to really 
get at mitigating the fires that are taking place on the 
landscape?
    For instance, wood innovations, how do we bring in things 
like cross-laminated timber, biochar as opportunities to use 
small-diameter, low-value material, which now, by and large, we 
pile it and burn it? We want to introduce wood innovations into 
the system so that we can help create jobs in our small rural 
communities, and provide another economic stimulus, if you 
will, into these communities.
    It is very important that we remove a lot of vegetation off 
the landscape, because it is a major contributor to fires, 
disease, and insects. But we have to have markets, and we have 
to take advantage, from an economic standpoint, to incentivize 
not only the industry, but new people to move in and utilize 
this type of material.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you. I am out of time, but thank you for 
your answer. Thank you for your service.
    And I will yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I would like to 
recognize the Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. 
Westerman, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, and thank you, 
Chief, for being here today and for your testimony. I know you 
and I have a lot of common interests. You mentioned markets for 
wood products. I think that is extremely important. And I think 
there are a lot of areas we can work together on to make our 
Federal lands more productive, make our forests more healthy, 
which will be beneficial all the way around.
    But as we are here to talk about your budget today, one 
item I saw in there was that the Forest Service budget proposes 
taking $1.6 million from hazardous fuels reduction and $6 
million from wildfire preparedness for electric vehicles, which 
is a total of nearly $8 million. Chief, was that your decision, 
or did that come from above?
    Mr. Moore. So, maybe I can talk about the thinking behind 
that decision.
    Mr. Westerman. I have to move quickly. I just need to know, 
was that your decision or did somebody else----
    Mr. Moore. Well, Congressman, I support that decision.
    Mr. Westerman. OK. I am going to just move on, then.
    There has been some recent research showing how much carbon 
catastrophic wildfires are emitting into the atmosphere. Are 
you familiar with the amount of carbon that was emitted during 
California's record-breaking 2020 wildfire season?
    Mr. Moore. Not confidently that I would want to testify 
here today, but I am familiar with it in general.
    Mr. Westerman. It is roughly 127 million metric tons.
    Do you know how many EVs the Forest Service would need to 
buy in order to offset 127 million metric tons of carbon 
emissions?
    Mr. Moore. How much?
    Mr. Westerman. Well, based on the back-of-the-napkin or 
back-of-the-envelope calculations I did, and some data from MIT 
that, Mr. Chairman, I ask to submit this report to the record--
--
    Mr. Tiffany. So ordered.

    [The information follows:]

   ARE ELECTRIC VEHICLES DEFINITELY BETTER FOR THE CLIMATE THAN GAS-
                             POWERED CARS?

Yes: although electric cars' batteries make them more carbon-intensive 
to manufacture than gas cars, they more than make up for it by driving 
much cleaner under nearly any conditions.

MIT Climate Portal, October 13, 2022 by Andrew Moseman, MIT Climate 
Portal Writing Team

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-
better-climate-gas-powered-cars

                                 *****

Although many fully electric vehicles (EVs) carry ``zero emissions'' 
badges, this claim is not quite true. Battery-electric cars may not 
emit greenhouse gases from their tailpipes, but some emissions are 
created in the process of building and charging the 
vehicles.Nevertheless, says Sergey Paltsev, Deputy Director of the MIT 
Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, electric 
vehicles are clearly a lower-emissions option than cars with internal 
combustion engines. Over the course of their driving lifetimes, EVs 
will create fewer carbon emissions than gasoline-burning cars under 
nearly any conditions.

``We shouldn't claim victory that with this switch to electric cars, 
problem solved, we are going to have zero emissions,'' he says. ``No, 
that's not the case. But electric cars are actually much, much better 
in terms of the impact on the climate in comparison to internal 
combustion vehicles. And in time, that comparative advantage of 
electric cars is going to grow.''

One source of EV emissions is the creation of their large lithium-ion 
batteries. The use of minerals including lithium, cobalt, and nickel, 
which are crucial for modern EV batteries, requires using fossil fuels 
to mine those materials and heat them to high temperatures. As a 
result, building the 80 kWh lithium-ion battery found in a Tesla Model 
3 creates between 2.5 and 16 metric tons of CO2 (exactly how 
much depends greatly on what energy source is used to do the 
heating).1 This intensive battery manufacturing means that 
building a new EV can produce around 80% more emissions than building a 
comparable gas-powered car.2

But just like with gasoline cars, most emissions from today's EVs come 
after they roll off the production floor.3 The major source 
of EV emissions is the energy used to charge their batteries. These 
emissions, says Paltsev, vary enormously based on where the car is 
driven and what kind of energy is used there. The best case scenario 
looks like what's happening today in Norway, Europe's largest EV 
market: the nation draws most of its energy from hydropower, giving all 
those EVs a minuscule carbon footprint. In countries that get most of 
their energy from burning dirty coal, the emissions numbers for EVs 
don't look nearly as good--but they're still on par with or better than 
burning gasoline.

To illustrate how EVs create fewer emissions than their counterparts, 
Paltsev points to MIT's Insights Into Future Mobility study from 
2019.4 This study looked at comparable vehicles like the 
Toyota Camry and Honda Clarity across their gasoline, hybrid, plug-in 
hybrid, battery electric, and hydrogen fuel cell configurations. The 
researchers found that, on average, gasoline cars emit more than 350 
grams of CO2 per mile driven over their lifetimes. The 
hybrid and plug-in hybrid versions, meanwhile, scored at around 260 
grams per mile of carbon dioxide, while the fully battery-electric 
vehicle created just 200 grams. Stats from the U.S. Department of 
Energy tell a similar story: Using the nationwide average of different 
energy sources, DOE found that EVs create 3,932 lbs. of CO2 
equivalent per year, compared to 5,772 lbs. for plug-in hybrids, 6,258 
lbs. for typical hybrids, and 11,435 lbs. for gasoline 
vehicles.5

MIT's report shows how much these stats can swing based on a few key 
factors. For example, when the researchers used the average carbon 
intensity of America's power grid, they found that a fully electric 
vehicle emits about 25 percent less carbon than a comparable hybrid 
car. But if they ran the numbers assuming the EV would charge up in 
hydropower-heavy Washington State, they found it would emit 61 percent 
less carbon than the hybrid. When they did the math for coal-heavy West 
Virginia, the EV actually created more carbon emissions than the 
hybrid, but still less than the gasoline car.

In fact, Paltsev says, it's difficult to find a comparison in which EVs 
fare worse than internal combustion. If electric vehicles had a shorter 
life span than gas cars, that would hurt their numbers because they 
would have fewer low-emissions miles on the road to make up for the 
carbon-intensive manufacture of their batteries. Yet when the MIT study 
calculated a comparison in which EVs lasted only 90,000 miles on the 
road rather than 180,000 miles, they remained 15 percent better than a 
hybrid and far better than a gas car.

And while internal combustion engines are getting more efficient, EVs 
are poised to become greener by leaps and bounds as more countries add 
more clean energy to their mix. MIT's report sees gasoline cars 
dropping from more than 350 grams of CO2 per mile to around 
225 grams by the year 2050. In that same span, however, battery EVs 
could drop to around 125 grams, and perhaps even down to 50 grams if 
the price of renewable energy were to drop significantly.

``Once we decarbonize the electric grid--once we get more and more 
clean sources to the grid--the comparison is getting better and 
better,'' Paltsev says.

                                  ***

Footnotes

1 These figures are derived from comparison of three recent 
reports that conducted broad literature reviews of studies attempting 
to quantify battery manufacturing emissions across different countries, 
energy mixes, and time periods from the early 2010s to the present. We 
discard one outlier study from 2016 whose model suggested emissions 
from manufacturing the battery in our example could total as high as 
almost 40 metric tons. The lowest estimates typically come from studies 
of U.S. and European battery manufacturing, while the highest come from 
studies of Chinese and other East Asian battery manufacturing--which is 
consistent with the different energy mixes in these regions.

2 This estimate comes from Argonne National Laboratory's 
GREET (Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in 
Technologies) Model, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy. It 
assumes comparable models of EV and gas-powered car, and that the EV 
has a battery with a range of 300 miles, similar to a Tesla Model 3. 
Different assumptions about battery manufacture would offer different 
comparisons; in this model, the battery of the EV entails close to 12 
metric tons of CO2 emissions.

3 Using the same GREET figures as above, manufacturing and 
end-of-life disposal account for around 9% of a gas car's emissions, 
and around 29% of an EV's (more than half of which comes from the 
battery alone). A plug-in hybrid EV is in the middle at around 17%. 
This analysis assumes the EV is charged with the average emissions 
intensity of the U.S. electric grid; that all cars drive around 173,000 
miles in their lifetime; and that the gas car gets 30.7 miles to the 
gallon.

4 MIT Energy Initiative: Insights Into Future Mobility, 
November 2019.

5 U.S. Department of Energy Alternative Fuels Data Center: 
Emissions from Electric Vehicles. Accessed October 13, 2022.

                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Westerman [continuing]. And the Federal Highway 
Administration, the number comes up to 62.8 million EVs to 
offset 127 million metric tons of carbon that would otherwise 
be emitted from internal combustion engine cars.
    Do you know the size of the entire Forest Service vehicle 
fleet?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Westerman. It is 18,284 vehicles. I did a lot of 
research for you here.
    Given the fact that the Forest Service would need to 
purchase almost 3,500 times more the amount of vehicles it 
currently owns in order to offset emissions from one state in 
one year, from a carbon perspective, does it make sense to you 
that the Forest Service is taking money away from preventing 
megafires, instead of directing that money toward purchasing 
EVs?
    Mr. Moore. I am sorry, I missed the----
    Mr. Westerman. Does it make sense to purchase EVs instead 
of doing forest management when you look at the big climate 
picture?
    Mr. Moore. I think the whole picture is a bit more complex, 
Congressman, because it is not to replace all of our vehicles 
with electric vehicles. It is really looking at what portion 
that we may be able to replace because, as you know, depending 
on where you are and the type of landscapes that we drive our 
vehicles, electric vehicles probably will not work in all of 
our locations.
    Mr. Westerman. I get all of that. I just think diverting $8 
million from catastrophic wildfire to electric vehicles is a 
waste of taxpayer money. And it is more of a messaging than it 
is actually doing something to help the forest.
    Also, you all put a report out last week that talked a lot 
about mature and old-growth forest. I went to forestry school, 
and I don't remember any definition of mature or old-growth 
forest, yet the Forest Service is trying to define that now. 
Can you tell me, briefly, what a mature or an old-growth forest 
is?
    Mr. Moore. When we looked at defining, from a definition 
standpoint, what old growth is, as you know, it depends on the 
species in terms of what defines an old growth. But if we could 
just talk plain here for a moment, it is those older trees and, 
like I say, depending on the species, but you are looking at 
trees 80 years or older in many of the species.
    Now, the report that was put out had to do with mature and 
old growth. And we were required under executive order to do an 
inventory.
    Mr. Westerman. So, it was an executive order that required 
you to inventory something that science hasn't really been able 
to define. And I am sorry to cut you off, but in that report on 
old growth it states that ``narrative frameworks are going to 
inform the policy and practice of forest management for old 
growth.''
    The report also includes the following: ``The role of 
place, attachment, or identity, meaning the symbolic importance 
of a place as a repository for emotions and relationships that 
give meaning and purpose to life, may also be particularly 
relevant in our understanding of how people relate to and value 
old-growth forest.'' If that didn't make any sense, I read it 
over and over and over last night, and it still doesn't make 
any sense to me.
    Chief, I know your heart is in the right place, and you 
want to do the right thing. Let's just get busy managing our 
forests, making them more fire resilient like I know you want 
to, getting those markets out there so that we can do 
management. And I will support you any way I can in that.
    And, again, thank you for your testimony, and I look 
forward to working with you going forward.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Congressman.
    Mr. Tiffany. The Chairman yields. Next, I would like to 
recognize the gentlewoman from New Mexico, Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    You have 5 minutes.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much, Chairman.
    Chief Moore, one year ago, the Forest Service started not 
one, but two fires in my district in the beautiful forest and 
watersheds of my home in the old-growth forest that meant so 
much to us. Families lost their homes, their ranches, their 
livelihoods. Congress passed my Hermits Peak Canyon Fire Act to 
provide nearly $4 billion to help New Mexicans recover. But the 
pain of losing so much, it is not going to go away.
    Chief Moore, victims in New Mexico are watching us today. 
What do you have to say to them?
    Mr. Moore. Congresswoman, I want to acknowledge right up 
front the extraordinary impacts that these events have had on 
the people and on the different communities there in New 
Mexico. And really, being a professional for so many years 
working for the Forest Service and seeing this happen time and 
time again, my heart really bleeds for the communities to see 
what is taking place on our different landscapes.
    So, just know that I and our employees within the agency 
are committed to doing community protection. We are committed 
to trying to reduce the amount of hazardous fuel that we have 
on those landscapes because we have seen the impact that it 
has. In fact, a lot of our employees live in these same 
communities.
    So, what I want you to know is that we care. We have 
committed a life to trying to protect these areas. But the 
conditions on the ground----
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. So, thank you. I mean, I think a good 
apology would be a nice place to start.
    But you also reviewed the New Mexico fires and acknowledged 
you did not use the resources needed to monitor your prescribed 
burns. We were using resources to fight fires, but not 
resources when you start the fires, which doesn't make sense. 
You left the Calf Canyon fire smoldering for months. Everyone 
who has been camping knows you never leave the fire until it is 
out. And we left the fire. You acknowledge that use of 
technologies like infrared drones could have stopped this from 
happening. However, my constituents have been told on the 
ground from Forest Service personnel that we will use those 
drones until they are needed elsewhere.
    Chief Moore, there is no room for error. Will you commit to 
me that you are going to use all the resources needed at 
prescribed burns, including drones, to make sure the fire is 
out?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, Congresswoman, I will certainly commit 
myself and the agency to that. But keep in mind that that 
particular fire had snow on it. It had rain on it a couple of 
times, and we did think that it was out.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. But when it started up again, you went 
to the fire, and it was monitored, and then they left before it 
had been extinguished. And it was the conflagration of the two 
fires which destroyed thousands and thousands of acres, the 
largest wildfire we have ever seen.
    I secured an outside independent investigation through GAO 
on the use of prescribed burns. Chief Moore, yes or no, when 
the GAO report is released, can we count on you to work with my 
office and the GAO to implement its recommendations to improve 
our policies for prescribed burns?
    Because I wanted to make sure we had an outside look in. I 
know you have done some work, but will you commit to working 
with us to implement those?
    Mr. Moore. Congresswoman, I will always commit to working 
with you.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. So, I was at the Rules Committee until 
3 a.m. last night, together, how is it that we ended up having 
two from Resources of the four Democrats on Rules. We were 
there until 3 a.m. We were fighting Republicans' plan to 
default on America, to hold our country hostage until we agreed 
to a 22 percent cut from the agencies. Those cuts are going to 
be disastrous, disastrous for people at USDA, cutting rural 
programs, throwing families out of their homes, tossing them 
out of Medicaid and nutrition programs.
    But they are going to really do a lot of harm, a lot of 
harm to your agency. What would that reduction do to your 
ability to pay firefighters and to respond to the wildfires 
that we all know are going to erupt? They are going to erupt 
not because of prescribed burns, but because we are in a 
historic drought caused by climate crisis. Tell us what it 
would do.
    Mr. Moore. Let me first say that whatever Congress decides 
to pass, we are going to do our best to meet its intent.
    Secondly, if there are reductions from where we are now, 
what you will see is a continuation of us losing firefighters. 
You will see a continued reduction in our ability to reduce the 
potential for catastrophic wildfires out on the landscape. But 
if that is Congress' decision, then we are going to do 
everything we can to meet its intent.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Chief Moore, I have run out of time, 
but I will submit a written question and ask that you respond 
to how we are going to be dealing with the burn scar. We know 
that you are working on seeding and reforestation, because we 
are going to have horrible flooding, right?
    We saw it last time. We have snow and we have fast 
snowmelt. I want you to respond to how you are going to be 
working with all the Federal agencies on a coordinated basis 
for the private lands, as well as the Federal.
    Thank you. My time is up.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    Mr. Lamborn [presiding]. Thank you.
    Chief Moore, it is great to have you here. Thanks for your 
testimony and for coming before the Committee. It is great to 
have Chairman Westerman here today. He has forgotten more about 
forestry than most of us will ever know, yourself excluded in 
that, of course.
    I am going to ask a background question, Chief, and then a 
legal question that I am very interested in.
    First of all, though, while I appreciate the attention paid 
to wildfire in the budget, I am concerned that this money won't 
translate to reduced fires for reasons I will get into in a 
minute. The Pike and San Isabel National Forests in or near my 
district have a tree stand density of 250 to 300 trees per 
acre. A healthy forest should have roughly 50 to 80 trees per 
acre.
    In the fall 2020, Colorado saw the two largest wildfires in 
state history: the Cameron Peak Fire and the East Troublesome 
Fire. Despite robust Federal funding, fuel material continues 
to pile up on Federal lands. So, Chief, what methodology does 
the Forest Service use to decide the appropriate level of fuel 
material and tree stand density on any given land?
    Mr. Moore. What we are trying to mimic, Congressman, and by 
the way, thanks for that question, it is very informed.
    And in many places outside of Colorado, we have even more 
trees per acre than what you mentioned is 300. In fact, we have 
600-plus in some of our locations across the West. And if we 
want to mimic conditions in the past, where we want to get down 
to somewhere between 40 and 80 trees per acre, that is a 
dilemma, but it is also an opportunity for us, working with the 
communities and our state partners, to say, ``How do we come up 
with a plan, collectively, collaterally, and how do we take 
advantage of the opportunities we have now?''
    If you look at the Fiscal Year 2024 budget, we have a lot 
of opportunities there, and it is a great opportunity for us to 
engage with our community leaders, state, tribal, and other 
Federal partners to look at what do we do here.
    And I mentioned earlier in my opening statement about wood 
innovations, and it is an opportunity there to create new 
economic opportunities in many of our small, rural communities. 
But we want to do that with our communities, and we want to be 
able to sit down with them, so it is not the Forest Service 
dictating or deciding what we do and how we provide these 
opportunities, but it is us sitting around the table with 
others to say, OK, here is our challenge, let's pursue 
opportunities together.
    Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you. And I wish you all the success 
on that.
    Now to the legal issue that I think is a major obstacle to 
achieving this goal. The President's budget requests hundreds 
of millions of dollars for wildfire treatment, despite the fact 
that both the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Infrastructure 
and Jobs Act each gave Federal agencies billions of dollars for 
wildfire management. Despite clear congressional authority to 
remove this fuel, agencies refuse to do it for fear of 
lawsuits.
    In the 2018 farm bill, categorical exclusions were signed 
into law that would allow all Federal agencies to remove dead 
and dying trees without an Environmental Impact Statement or 
assessment. This opened up hundreds of millions of acres to 
wildfire fuel reduction, but only a few hundred thousand acres 
have been treated.
    A copy of the Forest Service Handbook specifically states 
that the Forest Service will not use fuel-related categorical 
exclusions because of the 2007 appellate court case Sierra Club 
v. Bosworth, a 9th Circuit decision in which Sierra Club sued 
the Federal Service for trying to remove dead trees, even after 
they had been burned in a wildfire.
    And I would like to submit this handbook language into the 
record.
    Without objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]

  NEPA Handbook--Chapter 30--Categorical Exclusion from Documentation
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Lamborn. So, Chief Moore, is the Forest Service still 
prevented from carrying out fuel removal using categorical 
exclusions because of the appellate Bosworth decision?
    Mr. Moore. Yes. Congressman, litigation is what it is, and 
it is a part of our society. So, let me say what we are doing, 
if I can.
    Mr. Lamborn. No, no. Talk about the Bosworth decision, if 
you would.
    Mr. Moore. Well, what I want to talk about, though, is to 
answer that by letting you know what we have been doing, and 
how we have adjusted, based on litigation.
    Right now, 85 percent of our environmental assessments are 
done through categorical exclusions, and that is about 4,000 on 
an annual basis. So, we are using categorical exclusion to the 
tune of about 85 percent of our NEPA documentation. That is 
what I was talking about, streamlining or finding new 
efficiencies, regardless of litigation. We are working with our 
communities and partners to streamline this.
    One other piece I might add here is that the Secretary has 
given us emergency authorities to use, particularly in the 
wildfire crisis strategy, on 28 million acres that is 
considered in these landscapes, these fire sheds. To date, we 
have had eight requests to come in to use this authority. We 
have approved six of them. So, we are moving out on trying to 
create lots of opportunities to remove a lot of that vegetation 
using our partners, both at the state, Federal, tribal, and 
non-profit level.
    Mr. Lamborn. Well, Chief, I am glad that you are using some 
of those various tools. I wish that you had the opportunity to 
use even more.
    I question whether Bosworth at the 9th Circuit should be 
applied in a state like Colorado, which is in the 10th Circuit. 
But beyond that, in the 2018 farm bill, Congress and the 
President passed legislation saying use it in this context. And 
the Forest Service is specifically saying, because of a 
previous case predating the legislation in 2018, we are not 
going to even touch it, we are not going to even go there. So, 
I really question that approach, Chief, and I wish you would 
look into that, and hopefully change that.
    Mr. Moore. Yes, thank you, Congressman.
    May I just say, too, though, that, based on my experiences, 
I have found that when we debate and argue over litigation, we 
paralyze ourselves from action. And my intent is to not allow 
the agency to get paralyzed over talking about things that they 
have no control over.
    What we are going to do is look at the writing on the wall, 
if you will, and how do we need to strategize to still be 
effective, in spite of the challenges that we have. And that is 
where we are today, and that is why I built a lot of 
accountability in our system, and that is why I am meeting with 
all of the regional forests' deputy chiefs on a monthly basis 
to look at what are those challenges and what are we going to 
do to mitigate those challenges.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. The gentlelady, Ranking Member, is 
recognized.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, and thank you, Chief Moore, 
for attending this Committee hearing and answering some 
questions.
    I come from California. I feel like we are the wildfire 
capital of the United States. And part of fire risk management, 
I believe, is personnel and having enough folks to fight the 
fires. As a State Senator, I actually worked with the Fire and 
Forestry Restoration Program, which pipelines men and women who 
worked under Cal Fire while they were in prison into permanent 
firefighter positions.
    And I would love it if you could speak to the need to 
appropriately fund permanent firefighter positions, so that we 
have the kind of personnel that we need on an ongoing annual 
basis, year-round to fight these fires.
    Mr. Moore. Yes, Congresswoman. In fact, in the Fiscal Year 
2024 budget there is a request in there to hire about 970 
additional firefighters for that reason. We are also looking at 
converting some of our seasonals or temporaries into permanent, 
full-time.
    Our plan is to have about 11,300 firefighters on board. As 
of this morning, as I was looking at what we currently have 
staffed, I think we have about 7,900, and that is the most that 
we have had at this time of the year since about 2018. And a 
part of that is because of what Congress has provided so far, 
and that is a temporary salary bump that our firefighters have 
received. So, we have less attrition in our firefighter ranks 
because of that temporary fix.
    But now, if this fix is not permanent, we will see a 
continuation of what we were seeing in the past because when 
you compare what a wildland firefighter gets in the Federal 
Service, it is two times, sometimes three times less than what 
some states and some county and local fire departments get for 
the same work.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you for that. I also represent Los 
Angeles. We don't have many, if any, forests in Los Angeles, 
although we do have some beautiful ones across my state. Can 
you talk about the work that you are doing to introduce 
forestry into urban areas, especially into urban communities 
that might not have the access that some communities might that 
are more rural?
    Mr. Moore. Yes. In fact, as you look at our urban forest 
program and how we are trying to connect within these urban 
areas, we have about $1 billion to look at urban forestry kinds 
of things.
    A part of that is to look at how do we go into these urban 
areas and talk about the value of planting trees. What is the 
value of trees, and what impact or effect does it have on your 
utility bill? What is the impact that you have in some of our 
communities in our urban areas, where you don't have many 
trees? And where we have explored that with some of our non-
profit partners, we have seen a huge difference.
    In the Los Angeles area, as a matter of fact, where we have 
put in what we call pocket parks or alleyways, green alleyways, 
and where you bring birds back into the communities, and what a 
spiritual well-being that is for the communities. So, we have 
seen that with partners before with few dollars, and now that 
we have a few extra dollars, our intent is to introduce more of 
that.
    But it is also the land stewards in the area. Everyone is 
not going to come out to the national forests, so how can you 
appreciate land steward ethics, and how do you improve your 
land ethics from where you are, no matter where that is, 
whether it is in the rural areas or in our populated urban 
areas?
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you so much for that. I just have 
to say that I also have the Baldwin Hills Conservancy in my 
district. We have Kenny Hahn Park. It is a county park. But we 
have been doing a lot of work to connect trails to one another, 
to focus on watershed projects, to look at water harvesting and 
conservation, to look at the protection and the expansion of 
those lands, to look at connectivity between them and the urban 
communities that surround them, and expand them in smaller 
ways, but still meaningful ways across the county because you 
can be in an urban center and still care about the environment.
    I want to say to folks who are in rural communities that 
these issues are also important to folks that live in the big 
city.
    Mr. Moore. Yes, you are absolutely right, Congresswoman. As 
a matter of fact, down in the Los Angeles area, the San 
Bernardino area, we are looking at planning, regional planning. 
So, regardless of the landownership boundaries or 
jurisdictional boundaries, how do we give the public a complete 
experience?
    So, rather than the county or city planning a trail and it 
stops at Forest Service boundary, how do we include the Forest 
Service and look at that complete experience and a better 
experience by doing planning for that region, regardless of 
jurisdiction boundaries. We are moving in that direction now to 
really get at improving the experience that our publics have 
with the outdoors, period.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Great, thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany [presiding]. The gentlelady yields. I would 
like to recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Curtis, for 5 
minutes.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Curtis. OK, Mr. Chairman, I will be the one person 
today that sticks to my time.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Curtis. Chief Moore, so pleased to have you here. My 
compliments to you in your demeanor and the way you have 
handled this. I appreciate your professionalism.
    As opposed to the gentlelady from Los Angeles, I represent 
the 3rd Congressional District of Utah, where, as a state, 67 
percent of our land is owned by the Federal Government. In my 
district, a number of counties are 90 percent federally owned. 
My district spans 400 miles top to bottom.
    So, our relationship with you is just critical. And I am 
pleased to report that city, county, state leaders would have 
me thank you particularly for your men and women on the ground 
and our relationship with the Forest Service. You can imagine 
in my state how critical that relationship is, and I just want 
you to know we feel very good about the relationship, and a 
high compliment to your men and women in Utah who actually are 
boots on the ground and doing a great job. So, thank you very 
much for that.
    Along that line, you have just rolled out the mature and 
old-growth forest initiative. Maybe you could comment just 
specifically how you see states and your agency interacting to 
both identify and then manage these areas.
    Mr. Curtis. Yes. So, Congressman, under the executive order 
we were required to do a few things. And I will just mention 
one was to do an inventory. We have to know what is out there. 
The next step is really to do an assessment of the risk 
associated with that. And then the third step of that, in order 
to make that happen, is really engage our publics and our 
friends into this process, so that it is not something that we 
are doing without public involvement and public input. And that 
is where we are now.
    And I don't know if there is a full understanding of what 
this actually says, but it does allow management in these 
areas. It doesn't preclude that, because we all know that where 
we are not doing management----
    Mr. Curtis. Just for the sake of time, I am just going to 
leave that footnote with you that, of course, the state of Utah 
would love to be deeply involved in both identifying and 
managing those areas.
    Let's talk about fire suppression. Obviously, a big topic 
today. The way a lot of these areas have been managed over the 
years has left a lot of undergrowth in the understudy. And, I 
think, traditionally, a lot of that in Utah has been, well, we 
need to have people come in and harvest this wood, and we 
would, of course, encourage that.
    But I am also aware of efforts in Summit County to do a 
biomass biochar project, and would just love to draw your 
attention to that, and ask you to maybe look into that. That is 
not something we have done much of in Utah, and I think 
particularly in that county they would like to explore that and 
see if that can be part of the answer, as well.
    Mr. Moore. I would love to have the opportunity to visit 
with you on that, and the community there. And, in fact, the 
same thing and the same commitment I made to Congressman 
Westerman.
    Mr. Curtis. Great, excellent. Let me touch on the roadless 
rule.
    There are lots of reasons why this is good, but then also 
has the ability to limit your ability to reach if you think 
about specifically my district, where we have just thousands 
and thousands of acres. Is there anything in your wildfire 
crisis strategy that looks at the roadless rule, and how to 
deal and access with these hard-to-reach areas?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, I am not familiar on the extent across the 
country, but I do think that we have opportunities to manage a 
lot of these lands in some of these roadless areas.
    We already have some roads in roadless areas, and if we are 
going to treat some of these lands we have to have access in 
and out. So, we are trying to see what are our opportunities in 
this designation.
    Mr. Curtis. I am going to make you a proposal that we would 
love to host you in Utah. As I have alluded to, our state is 
very different, right, than a lot of these areas. And to the 
extent your travel plans ever find you in Utah, we would love 
to host you and actually take you on the ground and see some of 
the difficulties that are unique to Utah in managing these 
forests. And we, you and I, could use that opportunity to also 
continue to foster the relationship between your agency and my 
state and local agencies.
    Mr. Moore. Congressman, during a meeting, I did commit to a 
lot of the county sups, county commissioners there to visit 
Utah. So, I am looking forward to it.
    Mr. Curtis. Good. Please coordinate with us. There are 
things we would love to show you while you are there. Thank 
you, Mr. Chief.
    Mr. Moore. Absolutely.
    Mr. Curtis. And Mr. Chairman, with 28 seconds left, I yield 
my time because I am sure there are other Members who would 
love to abuse the time.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. And since I used more 
than 28 seconds over my 5 minutes, we will count it toward that 
deficit.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Curtis. OK.
    Mr. Tiffany. Next, I would like to recognize the gentleman 
from Oregon, Mr. Bentz.
    Mr. Bentz, you have 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And thank you, Chief Moore, for being here today. Sadly, I 
don't have enough time to talk about all the issues. I will 
list the ones I am not going to talk about.
    I won't be talking about the need to use our forests better 
for water retention.
    I won't be talking about the First Peoples' opportunities 
to access the forest, because they can, and I hope we use more 
stewardship programs with them.
    The years-long homeless problem around Bend, Oregon, where 
dozens, if not hundreds, of people have moved into Forest 
Service lands and won't leave.
    The lack of proper notice to neighbors along Lemon Gulch in 
and around Prineville, Oregon.
    The embarrassingly low amount of the timber harvest in the 
Western United States, and it is falling instead of going up.
    The cost of treatment of land, which appears to be $700 to 
$2,000 per acre, which puts in perspective perhaps the millions 
that were mentioned earlier about treating our forests. And, of 
course, there are 90-some-odd million acres of forests in the 
Western United States that need help. So, you might want to add 
some scale to some of those things that you are mentioning 
today.
    The one question I am going to ask before I go into an 
example of what I do want to talk about, which is 
accountability and respect for private property, which is not 
apparent in many of the firefighting operations that your 
agency either is in charge of or conducts, I will get to that 
in a second. But I would like you to tell us what it costs the 
Forest Service to fight fire per acre.
    The number I have is $914, which is about six times what is 
normal. Is that right? For putting a fire out, is that the cost 
per acre to put a fire out by your agency, $914?
    Mr. Moore. I would like to see what all you are putting 
into that cost before I can commit on whether I think that is 
appropriate or not.
    Mr. Bentz. Yes, well, forget my number. What is yours?
    Mr. Moore. I don't really have a number on what it takes. I 
can tell you, generally, based on how we are funded and what it 
takes. But we have been spending $2 billion on fire suppression 
alone.
    Mr. Bentz. I know you have been spending it. I want to know 
how you are spending it. In fact, that is what we are here for 
today. So, I will just ask you if you would please provide this 
Committee with the cost per acre for the Forest Service to put 
out a fire. The normal phrase is the Forest Service puts out 
fires by dumping money on them, and they continue to dump money 
on them until it rains or snows. Now, that is what is generally 
said. I hope it is not true, but I need the number.
    I want to talk about October 19 of last year, up near 
Seneca, Oregon. That happens to be in my district. That 
actually is adjacent to one of my brother's ranching 
operations. And on that day, there was a prescribed burn 
started by your teams. Now, they gave, basically, a several-
hours' notice to the permittee, who had cattle on that exact 
space, not giving them time to get the cattle out. In fact, 
they could see cattle from the road where the fire was started. 
So, notice was an issue.
    And there was also what I would call cheating on the 
humidity test. And the way you do this, if the humidity is too 
low in the space you are going to do the fire, you go somewhere 
else and you take a test some distance away, and that is how 
you get around it. And the rumor was heard over the radio that 
that is what was going on.
    When the fire was started, there ensued a debate, shall we 
say, that is a nice word for it, between the property owners 
who saw that a week earlier when they had been in the same 
place, started the same fire, it had passed over a county 
highway, paved road, cars going back and forth, and started 
another bunch of fires. So, the question was, why in the world 
were they doing the same thing again, when nothing had changed? 
It was just as dry.
    So, there ensued a rather heated discussion, so to speak, 
between the landowner and the Forest Service folks that were 
starting the fire and then controlling it. The sheriff arrived 
and put your Forest Service person under arrest, and took him 
away so that things did not escalate.
    I saw your memos, and, Mr. Chair, I would like to offer 
them for the record, two of them, that you gave to your 
employees, saying how the employees were going to be supported, 
no matter what. Yet, we have videos, the sheriff does, and 
other recordings of what actually went on. Maybe you have seen 
them.
    But my point here is there wasn't one word in your 
statements to your employees about the importance of being nice 
to the people adjacent to your land. And that lack of respect 
is reprehensible. It needs to change.
    I am a total supporter of proper prescribed burns. That is 
the only way we are going to get rid of this huge amount of 
fuel. But you can't do it without proper respect. And when you 
are going to burn up fences and burn up other people's trees, 
about 100,000 board feet, they think, of the neighbor's 
property burned up, not a word said about how to pay for it, 
and immediately adjacent burning up fences between the cattle 
and roads, that can't happen.
    I am sorry to have to go on. I am going to stop right now, 
Mr. Chair, because I don't want to further intrude upon time. 
But I must say this is extraordinarily important. I look 
forward to seeing the cost per acre.
    Thank you, Chief Moore.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Per your request, we will enter that into the 
record. I see no objections.

    [The information follows:]

                NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

                           NFFE NEWS RELEASE

                            November 2, 2022

     Union Condemns Wrongful Arrest of U.S. Forest Service Employee

                      for ``Simply Doing His Job''

https://nffe.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/2022-11-2-PR-Snodgrass-
Arrest-final.pdf

                                 *****

Today, the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) strongly 
condemns the wrongful arrest of Rick Snodgrass, a U.S. Forest Service 
(USFS) wildland firefighter who was working as an active ``burn boss'' 
when taken into sheriff's custody on October 19, 2022. At the time of 
his arrest, Firefighter Snodgrass, an Assistant Fire Management 
Officer, was working as the incident commander overseeing fire 
operations and containment efforts during a prescribed burn on the 
Malheur National Forest in Grant County, Oregon. Grant County Sheriff 
Todd McKinley arrested Firefighter Snodgrass during the burn operation 
after the fire unexpectedly jumped a roadway when the wind picked up, 
causing the fire to burn several acres of grasslands on private 
property.

NFFE National President Randy Erwin released the following statement 
after the arrest of USFS Firefighter Snodgrass:

``It is unconscionable that a local sheriff would arrest a working 
wildland firefighter during an active fire operation. Not only did the 
sheriff exceed his authority in detaining Firefighter Snodgrass, in 
doing so, the sheriff put everyone and everything in danger by removing 
a working fire commander during a dangerous incident. Firefighter 
Snodgrass was arrested for simply doing his job.

``We applaud all of the wildland firefighters on the line that day who 
held their focus despite the Sheriff's interference. Undeterred, they 
worked together to contain the blaze and finish the job. Our 
firefighters who conduct and lead prescribed burns, like Firefighter 
Snodgrass, are highly trained professionals. They know how to manage 
the most dangerous situations. Prescribed burns are essential to 
keeping communities across this country safe from wildfires. When 
dealing with unpredictable environmental conditions, it is always 
possible that a prescribed burn could spill over into an untargeted 
area. Normally when this happens, the government will address any 
damages to affected parties as appropriate. It is not normal for a 
local sheriff to arrest a working fire commander during an incident. In 
doing so, the sheriff may have violated federal law that makes it a 
felony to interfere with a federal employee during their official 
duties, and the sheriff may have opened the county to massive liability 
for a civil rights violation for unlawfully detaining and removing 
Firefighter Snodgrass.

``Firefighter Snodgrass has the full, unconditional support of your 
union, as does every federal wildland firefighter across this country. 
NFFE is calling on state and federal authorities to investigate the 
reckless actions of Sheriff McKinley to pursue any violation of civil 
and criminal law. This incident will not be swept under the rug. There 
must be consequences for this unprecedented abuse of power and 
incredibly dangerous disruption to the critical work of the Forest 
Service.

``We applaud the USDA and the USFS for expressing their full support of 
Firefighter Snodgrass in the performance of his official duties. NFFE 
will continue to follow this investigation and provide support to 
Firefighter Snodgrass to ensure that rogue sheriffs or any other person 
who threatens or impedes public servants answer for their actions.''

                                 ______
                                 

                     U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                             Forest Service

                           Chief Randy Moore

                           November 28, 2022

              Update: Prescribed fire incident in Region 6

https://www.fs.usda.gov/inside-fs/leadership/update-prescribed-fire-
incident-region-6

                                 *****

On October 21st I shared my thoughts with you about a concerning matter 
where one of our burn bosses was arrested while conducting official 
work duties. You may be seeing media coverage as this continues to 
unfold, and I want to be sure you are hearing directly from me.

First and foremost, we are doing everything we can to support our burn 
boss, Ricky Snodgrass. The matter is still under investigation by local 
authorities, and an attorney chosen by Ricky, with the help of the 
Department of Justice, will be representing him. One of our Code and 
Commitments is that we protect one another, and we will continue to do 
that here to ensure that Ricky is supported in every way and defended 
vigorously in court.

As you all know, this is an unprecedented situation. As it continues to 
play out, I want to personally assure you that Forest Service and USDA 
leaders are tracking it closely and staying engaged. To that end, I 
have appointed a Washington Office Fire and Aviation Management leader 
to act as liaison to guide and support Ricky through this difficult 
period. I want to reiterate what I said in my message a couple of weeks 
ago--you will always have my support when you are performing duties 
within the scope of your employment as a federal employee, and you can 
expect the same support from your regional and local leadership.

We know prescribed fire is an essential tool in our toolbox for 
reducing wildfire risk and protecting communities. I want to thank all 
of you who have worked so hard to get your unit's programs back online 
so we can begin prescribed burning at a time of year when we have some 
of our best windows. You are making a difference by doing the work 
that's needed right now--the right work in the right way.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields back. Next, I recognize 
the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Rosendale, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Chief Moore, thank you so much for joining us today. I am 
very concerned about forest management. It impacts air quality, 
water quality, the economy, and our way of life in Montana and 
throughout the country.
    In 2022, more than 66,000 fires and more than 7 million 
acres burned across the country. In Montana alone, 125,000 
acres burned in 2022. We need to do all that we can to combat 
wildfires out West. We have seen that, as timber sales at the 
Forest Service lands go down, the severity of the wildfires on 
those same lands increases. Throwing money at wildfire crisis 
alone is not going to solve the problem.
    I just did a little bit of research, and according to the 
records, the National Forest Service budget in 1977 was $2.2 
billion. The revenue was $2 billion. And we did not have nearly 
the amount of acres being burned in wildfires as we do today. 
It is incredible, the cause and effect that takes place. We 
were harvesting more timber. We were generating more revenue. 
It nearly covered the Forest Service budget. It was a true win-
win scenario, and there is a definite cause and effect that 
takes place.
    Now, clearly, this is your problem to help us solve, but it 
is not a problem that was caused by you, and I do understand 
that. But you are the guy who happens to be here answering the 
questions today. And one of the things that you said earlier, I 
was sitting here listening, and you said litigation keeps you 
from meeting your goals. And I do believe that. I do believe 
that. As Chairman Westerman said, you have the best interests 
of the Forest Service at hand, and the forest.
    I continue to be very concerned about the 2015 Cottonwood 
decision, particularly as the partial fix expired last month. 
As you know, the decision makes it so that if any new species 
are listed under the Endangered Species Act, a new critical 
habitat is designated, or more information becomes known about 
a species previously listed, the U.S. Forest Service must 
restore an already onerous consultation process with the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service about how the information will impact 
both the forest plan and specific restoration projects.
    Also, the Forest Service must follow different procedures, 
depending on where you actually operate.
    So, my first question is how does it impact the Forest 
Service operations to have different requirements based on what 
Federal Circuit Court jurisdiction you operate in?
    Mr. Moore. Congressman, let me say first right off the bat 
that we do agree that the Cottonwood decision would be an 
impact on the agency. So, we really look forward to working 
with you on how to address this issue.
    But if I was to look at right now, that decision basically 
says that we would have to reconsult on endangered species 
issue at the plan level. We feel that that is unnecessary, 
because we do that already at the site-specific project level. 
And to do that at the planning level is not necessary. And if 
we are required to do reconsultation at the planning level, I 
can tell you it is going to take over 10 years and tens of 
millions of dollars to do that. And we want to do that at a 
time where we are really trying to reduce the hazardous 
potential out there on the ground.
    Mr. Rosendale. OK. We are limited on our time. I want to 
get a couple more questions in.
    So, if that would extend this consultation another 10 
years, how long, on average, do the consultations take now with 
the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
    Mr. Moore. It takes a long time, and it depends on the 
project, and it depends on the issues that we are trying to 
address.
    Mr. Rosendale. A long time being 1 year, 2 years, 5 years?
    Mr. Moore. It could take all of that.
    Mr. Rosendale. OK.
    Mr. Moore. Or less.
    Mr. Rosendale. OK. Since the Cottonwood decision, do you 
know how many forest projects have been contested in Montana 
and/or the 9th Circuit?
    Mr. Moore. We just had a decision this week, I believe. OK, 
so we are not sure if they are Cottonwood or not, but we just 
had a decision this week that we are looking into.
    Mr. Rosendale. OK. The last count that I was able to get my 
hands on showed that we have 28 timber sales covering nearly 
30,000 acres that are tied up right now being litigated in 
Montana. And, clearly, that is forest land that is not going to 
be managed properly and timber that is not going to be 
harvested. So, that is why we are trying to resolve this issue.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am right down to it. I will yield 
back, thank you.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. Next, I would like to 
recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar.
    Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just last week, the 
Biden administration published a new executive order called, 
``Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice 
for All.'' While this Administration is spending copious 
amounts of time creating useless studies, new environmental 
justice scorecards that will, of course, end up with more 
regulatory burden and, of course, unfunded task forces and 
offices, real Americans continue to suffer. That is the actual 
injustice.
    I recently had a chance to meet with the ranchers from my 
district and around the state. They work daily to bring us not 
only food to the table across the state and the country, but 
they also do something that is less talked about that I think 
is more important. They are true conservationists. Their work 
helps to improve the soil, the health of the rangeland, even 
working to manage wildlife and wildfire.
    So, I do have a question for you, Chief Moore. In your role 
as Chief, yes or no, do you support the Rangeland Management 
Program?
    Mr. Moore. Of course I do.
    Dr. Gosar. So, if you support the Rangeland Management 
Program area, why is that support not translating into the 
investment of funds and resources?
    Mr. Moore. So, Congressman, we have lost over the years, 
and I am talking about 20 years that has really had an impact 
on where we are with any of our resources today. In fact, I 
have testified before that we have lost about 8,000 non-fire 
positions over the last 20 years. A lot of those positions 
include a lot of these critical resource areas that we depend 
on to manage that landscape.
    Range cons, range conservationist, a range specialist, is 
one of those resources that we have lost quite a bit of. And we 
know that we have a lot of rangeland, particularly across the 
West, but across the United States.
    Dr. Gosar. Now, I regularly hear from ranchers in my 
district that they are hearing that the agency says there is no 
money for key projects, despite nearly every other program area 
seeing significant increases in this budget. The fact that 
nearly half of the agency's portfolio are rangelands, how do 
you explain the lack of the parity for those 96 million acres 
of rangeland under the Forest Service management?
    Mr. Moore. Congressman, we are trying to show that 
rangelands are really critical, they are important. In fact, in 
the Fiscal Year 2024 budget, we have a plus million-and-a-half 
bucks to go toward range management. So, we are trying to 
recognize that in the budgeting process.
    Dr. Gosar. Got you. According to the last report available, 
which was for the year 2020, the National Forest Service 
authorized a total of 871,152 animal unit months, also known as 
AUMs, in the state of Arizona. Only 2,330 AUMs were on private 
land.
    I say this to illustrate the point that the Forest Service 
and the decisions that they make in terms of management play an 
outsized role in my district and the state at large in this 
industry. Since you have been Chief, have you had a chance to 
visit any of the permittees in Arizona?
    Mr. Moore. Well, when we made the announcement on the 
wildfire crisis strategy, I met with some of the ranchers at 
that point.
    Dr. Gosar. There or here?
    Mr. Moore. In Arizona, where we made the announcement, we 
made the first announcement with the Secretary.
    Dr. Gosar. So, now we are also currently experiencing some 
ongoing issues in the state, including conflicts between 
different types of users, which I would love to work out with 
you. Can I get a commitment from you to come visit us in the 
near future?
    Mr. Moore. Sure. In fact, I am sorry I didn't have a chance 
to visit you before, but I have been there quite a bit. But I 
am willing to always come back and visit, particularly with a 
personal invitation by you.
    Dr. Gosar. Well, I will tell you, Arizona is very 
interesting.
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    Dr. Gosar. And I think we could have solved a lot of our 
problems with our catastrophic wildfires if we would have just 
come through with the projects of the good stewardship aspect, 
and got contracts out at appropriate times. Do you see any of 
that moving forward?
    Mr. Moore. I am not sure I am familiar with the information 
that you are referring to, but I would be happy to follow up 
with you to look into what you are seeing as a concern to see 
how we might be able to address that.
    Dr. Gosar. Part of the problem around particularly 
Flagstaff is that you are working with a volcanic cone that is 
very steep. So, you ought to be taking care of what the 
mountain does first, but then go around.
    But it would sure be nice to see you out there and have 
that conversation, because the tools that are being used are 
being misused. What the Forest Service on the ground are saying 
doesn't equate to the way the tool was meant to be utilized for 
these animal units. Thank you.
    I yield.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. Next, I would like to 
recognize the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Fulcher.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Moore, thank you for being here. It is good to see you 
again. Thank you for your testimony.
    And I know you touched on this, but for the sake of our 
dialogue, how is it going with the hiring of, first of all, for 
seasonal firefighters, how is that challenge going right now?
    Mr. Moore. That is an interesting question. Because on the 
one hand, I would say it is going very well. As a matter of 
fact, last year we hired about 3,400 new employees into the 
Forest Service. The problem with that, though, is that we lost 
2,600 people through attrition. So, we are trying to----
    Mr. Fulcher. Now, is that a total number, or just----
    Mr. Moore. Total number.
    Mr. Fulcher. OK, all right.
    Mr. Moore. Total numbers. And remember, before I have said 
that of the 8,000 that we lost, we want to replace 4,000 of 
them. And then we wanted to leverage the other positions 
through partnerships. So, we had moved out to hire about 3,400 
last year, which we did. So, we do have 3,400 new employees 
into the agency, but we lost 2,600 during that same amount of 
time.
    So, when you look at increasing capacity, we have only 
netted about 800 new positions into the agency.
    Mr. Fulcher. So, how many openings? Since you are looking 
at the overall number, how many openings do you have right now? 
In a perfect world, if you could fill the----
    Mr. Moore. Well, our plan is to hire 2,500 this year, and 
we will be looking at probably even doing more of that, because 
we know that if we look at our annual attrition rate it is at 
about 1,800 per year. So, we know that we have to exceed the 
potential attrition rate if we are going to really look at 
increasing capacity. But we are moving to increase capacity. We 
are making a lot of good progress.
    Now we need to look at what is preventing the retention 
concern that we have across the board. Part of it, and a large 
part of it, had to do with our firefighters that were leaving 
because of the issues that we had around pay, around housing, 
around physical and mental care. So, we are addressing that on 
a temporary basis, and we are seeing the results change to date 
just based on this temporary fix.
    Now, we will see that continue to go down, the attrition 
continue to go down if this is made permanent.
    Mr. Fulcher. You did mention partnerships.
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    Mr. Fulcher. And the scenario with labor and the open 
positions, it looks like that would be an important component. 
With that, just shift gears a little bit. Talk about one of 
those partnerships that is prevalent in my state, Good Neighbor 
Authority. What is your view of that, and how is that going, 
from your vantage point?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, so the Good Neighbor Authority has been 
just a wonderful tool for us. In fact, when you look at how we 
are working with states, counties, tribes, it has really 
magnified what we are able to do. And it has really brought in 
a different type of collaboration that we are having with our 
partners.
    The other thing that we are doing in terms of partnership, 
not necessarily through GNA, Good Neighbor Authority, but one 
pilot we have now is moving timber out of Northern California 
into Wyoming and South Dakota to really help support the wood 
industry infrastructure. We are doing some of those types of 
things, trying to maintain the existing infrastructure we have 
to keep any more mills from closing or shutting down.
    And now, what we want to do is introduce the new technology 
or the new innovations into this process. So, we are working 
with industry and others to kind of help us decide how we might 
want to do that.
    Mr. Fulcher. And that makes sense. And as you are probably 
aware, we are attempting to expand that Good Neighbor Authority 
so that tribes and counties can participate in the revenue-
sharing component, and that is not the case. So, is it fair to 
say that you support that?
    Mr. Moore. Yes. In fact, when I look at the difference 
between us and the states in the GNA, and when we look at 
tribes and counties, there is a big difference because of how 
you can or cannot spend the revenue.
    I think if there was a change in the new farm bill that 
would allow that same way to operate with counties and tribes, 
you would see a much bigger use of GNA across the country. And 
I will say that GNA has really brought the community of people 
together looking at trying to address the issues we have on our 
landscapes.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that.
    Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I want to point out that 
this GNA program has been good, and we have such a backlog of 
work that needs to be done. Obviously, there are shortages with 
staffing.
    And just for the record, in 2022, there were 10 timber sale 
contracts that were awarded that were worth approximately $3.4 
million, and that also equated to 18.5 million board feet of 
timber that were processed through that program. And that is 
just one of the tools that I hope that we can expand and 
include tribes and counties in.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mrs. Boebert [presiding]. The gentleman's time is expired. 
The Chair recognizes Ranking Member Mr. Neguse.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Chief Moore, good to see you. As I mentioned in my opening 
statement, we are very grateful for the work that you are doing 
at the Forest Service and on a number of different policy areas 
that are deeply important to the people of Colorado and folks 
in my district.
    I want to talk a bit about, first, some of the landscape 
work and the fuels reduction. I am very grateful for the 
investments that the Forest Service has made thus far as part 
of the agency's Priority Landscapes rollout last year. And as I 
mentioned, we were grateful to welcome you to Colorado in the 
Arapahoe Roosevelt National Forest for the $33 million 
appropriation or allocation that the Forest Service had made 
with respect to that particular forest.
    But I also represent, or my district, rather, includes many 
other national forests. As you know, Colorado is home to 12, 
and that includes the White River National Forest, which has 
not received any funding through the 10-year strategy and the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, but faces grave threats from 
wildfires, including threats to critical watersheds and water 
supplies.
    So, I guess what I would like to ask, Mr. Moore, is if you 
could just explain how the Forest Service intends to designate 
additional projects past the initial landscape investments that 
have been made, and what the criteria will be for those 
additional designations. And I just wonder how you are taking 
into account the combined watershed and water supply ecosystem 
and recreation conditions within those different landscapes, 
which, ultimately, I think, would, in the case of the White 
River National Forest, certainly move it up the list with 
respect to the next phase, next tranche of landscape projects 
that you all announced, as well as the Routt National Forest 
and others in Colorado.
    Mr. Moore. Yes. So, let me say up front and let me 
recognize here that every place that doesn't currently have a 
landscape can justify that they should have one. And I think 
what it does is underscores the critical need to do a lot of 
work, particularly across the West, when you are talking about 
haz [hazardous] fuel reduction, when you talk about really 
trying to be responsive to the fires that we see all across the 
country because it has an impact on so many areas.
    Colorado, for example, with the type of, what we call it, 
the material there in relation to soil, we know that erosion 
can occur quickly, and that erosion goes right into the bodies 
of water. We know that it is critically important. You also 
have a lot of really threatened and endangered species there, 
as well, that are really important. And you have communities 
like the White River area.
    So, we are looking at combining not just the bill and IRA 
funding and the GAO funding, but also the regular appropriated 
dollars. And what we have done and what we are doing in a lot 
of our communities is building collaboratives, and those are 
community-led collaboratives, where we are sitting down with 
them to help decide what are those priorities in those 
different communities. And we are seeing a lot of payoff in 
terms of building partnerships and relationships into these 
communities that we serve that we don't typically have. And now 
that we have some dollars, we want to make sure that we are 
working with communities to help us prioritize where that work 
is at.
    Now, I can't tell you that the White River doesn't deserve 
more. It does. It also underscores the importance of the Fiscal 
Year 2024 budget, because it does address a lot of those types 
of concerns. And I would just say, one, particularly in your 
district, since you asked the question, the White River has a 
pilot that we are looking at nationally, and it really gets at 
this housing issue for firefighters, but also all of our 
employees, because, like the White River, it is very expensive 
to live in many places there.
    So, our employees, while we are serving those communities, 
we cannot afford to live in those communities. So, what we want 
to do is look at different types of ways that we can address 
this housing crisis that we have in many of our employees. The 
White River National Forest is looking at working with the 
county to look at a long-term lease to build housing that will 
be affordable housing for our employees and others, as well, in 
the community.
    Mr. Neguse. And we are very excited. Thank you, Mr. Moore. 
Thank you, Chief Moore, very excited about that particular 
project. Of course, well aware, and working with Summit County 
and the folks there to make sure that that comes to fruition.
    I am grateful to hear about the holistic way, I think, in 
which the Forest Service is going to approach the landscape 
identification process moving forward.
    A lot of my colleagues may not know, who aren't from 
Colorado, that White River National Forest is the most visited 
national forest in the United States of America, in my 
district. So, I am very grateful that you have recognized that.
    I also would just have to, in my final one second, simply 
say we have to do more on firefighter pay. And I know we have 
made great strides on that front through changes that we made 
in the law that I championed with my colleagues. But I am 
looking forward to working with you to ensure that those pay 
increases are permanent. We cannot allow those to lapse.
    With that, thank you for the indulgence and I yield back.
    Mrs. Boebert. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
recognizes Mr. LaMalfa for 5 minutes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Chief Moore, good to see you. Welcome here today. There was 
some talk earlier in this Committee because not all the 
Republicans supported a $1.6 billion allocation for the Forest 
Service of a giant, over a trillion-dollar bill, which would 
be, I think, a tenth of a percent, if I am thinking correctly, 
that we are somehow not in favor of your mission and 
firefighting and forest management, which a lot of us are not 
going to support trillion-dollar bills to get a little bitty 
goodie in there, and whether it is in the infrastructure bill 
or the so-called inflation reduction bill. So, know that we are 
here to help, and do it through a good appropriation process, 
and give you the tools you need.
    Let me jump over to the important aspect we are facing 
right now, and I have a series of questions, so I am going to 
ask you to be real, real concise. Do you agree that fire 
retardant is a critical tool, especially with the aircraft, and 
what we are using via aircraft, what we are facing in the West 
with giant wildfire?
    Mr. Moore. Do I----
    Mr. LaMalfa. Do you agree that it is a critical tool?
    Mr. Moore. Oh, yes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK, thank you. All right. So, I was pretty 
bummed out here recently in Committee that the Forest Service 
testified against my bipartisan legislation to protect the 
continued use of fire retardant from frivolous litigation that 
is seeking to ban its use. And if they are successful, it will 
take EPA up to 3 years to re-approve this material for fighting 
wildfire. Why would the Forest Service be against legislation 
to keep what we have?
    Mr. Moore. Well, I don't know that we are against the use 
of retardant. In fact, we think it is a critical and necessary 
way. Not only is it a safety issue for our firefighters, but it 
is also an issue for protecting communities.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Well, we agree on that. So, we had legislation 
to put a stop to a frivolous lawsuit trying to get rid of the 
material that will take 3 years to re-approve a permit to 
continue using the same stuff we have been using successfully. 
It has a record of only a tiny, tiny percent accidentally 
getting into a waterway, and it showed no ill effect. They do a 
great job of keeping it out of, there is a 300-foot buffer 
between the fire zone and the actual waterways. So, 99.9 
percent of that doesn't even get beyond the 300-foot buffer. 
So, why would we not fight to keep this material, especially 
since we have wildfire every year and have that taken away from 
us for 3 years?
    Mr. Moore. Yes. You know, Congressman, you are right there. 
There is probably less than 1 percent of retardant that 
actually gets into streams. And we are really concerned that, 
if that is taken away from us, then it is going to create a 
real big problem for us.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Well, I mean, this helps make your life easier 
for the men and women on the line there. So, I think we have--
--
    Mr. Moore. I am consistent in what I am saying, though.
    Mr. LaMalfa. What is that?
    Mr. Moore. I mean, the way I just approached that. I have 
said this all along, that use of retardant is critical for our 
needs.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you. All right. Well, then please find a 
way to support my bill, should it come to be really needed in 
the interim, because I don't know what we will do in the next 2 
or 3 years without it.
    Mr. McClintock and myself, we had sent a letter to you last 
year on the ``let-burn policies'' that you promised that we 
were going to implement aggressive strategies to extinguish 
wildfires within the first 24 hours after one is detected. Is 
that demonstrably different than previous years in utilizing 
that?
    Mr. Moore. Congressman, I know you have a lot of questions, 
but this takes a little bit of time to explain because I do 
think this is an area----
    Mr. LaMalfa. Well, I mean, they only give me 5 minutes 
around here. So, do you think more or less that we have seen a 
measurable, positive success in stopping the let-burn?
    [No response.]
    Mr. LaMalfa. Measurable.
    Mr. Moore. Well, I guess where I am going is that the 
interpretation of let it burn differs between what the agency 
is saying and how some people in the communities are viewing 
that.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. Do you think it has made a difference, 
though, in more aggressive, early attack?
    Mr. Moore. Do I think let it burn has made a difference?
    Mr. LaMalfa. No, us asking for us to, whatever you want to 
call the let-burn.
    Mr. Moore. I am not sure I understand.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Let me talk about Secure Rural Schools real 
quick. Under Title II and III of Secure Rural Schools, would 
you commit to returning to the original language intent of SRS 
Titles II and III, so that they have the flexibility locally to 
move the money as they see fit?
    When they have lost that flexibility, they are kind of 
stuck with how they can use that money.
    Mr. Moore. Yes, I understand the need to want to do that, 
but I am not sure that the Administration has taken a position 
on that yet, Congressman.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Well, they are telling me they have lost the 
ability under the Title II and III part of Secure Rural Schools 
to have the flexibility, so we need to return to having those 
Title II and III tools----
    Mrs. Boebert. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Stauber 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And Chief Moore, great to see you. Thanks for joining us 
today. I have a host of topics I would like to cover, so just 
please bear with me.
    First off, I reintroduced the Lake Winnibigoshish Land 
Exchange Act this year. Local support has been quickly and 
strongly building, and I understand that Chippewa National 
Forest staff has been enthusiastically engaging on the bill and 
the concurrent administrative exchange. As the bill moves 
through this body, can you please commit to working with us 
until it becomes law?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, I would be happy to work with you, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Stauber. Great. Thank you very much. Now I would like 
to focus on recreational topics that have impacted the Superior 
National Forest in particular.
    In January 2022, the U.S. Forest Service cut 13 percent of 
permits into the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, 
justifying the cut in permits due to more folks enjoying the 
outdoors due to COVID.
    Next, Wilderness Watch is again suing you over towboat 
usage, despite a 2015 settlement. For those that don't know the 
context, in brief, the 1978 Act allows for towboat usage so 
folks can have a recognized outfitter motor them to a different 
entry point, which limits crowding and makes the wilderness 
more accessible. The clear goal of this misguided, anti-use 
lawyer group is to end the ability of, in my opinion, anybody 
to enjoy the wilderness. It is clear that these groups don't 
like or don't appreciate our seniors who have a need and want 
and desire to be in the boundary waters or those with a 
disability to have access and to enjoy our public lands.
    And third, Lutsen Mountains needs a special use permit to 
expand their ski resort. Otherwise, they won't be able to 
compete with the larger resorts in the West. The opposition is 
refusing to meet with them, and the ball is now in your and the 
Forest's court.
    Mr. Moore, I appreciate our working relationship, and I 
expect it to continue, but please see these individual issues 
for what they are: in my opinion, a clear, targeted action 
that, at best, make access harder to the Superior National 
Forest or, at worst, end it altogether.
    So, Chief Moore, on canoe permits, tow boats, or Lutsen, 
will you please commit to actions that will expand access to 
the Superior National Forest, and not limit it?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, Congressman. Let me say that I think having 
access to these public lands is really important, and so is 
managing access to these same public lands. And there is kind 
of a delicate balance where, no matter which way we go, we have 
a large share of our public just unhappy with whatever that 
decision is.
    In terms of Lutsen Mountain, we are looking to finish up 
that EIS, the final EIS, and hoping to have a decision this 
summer.
    Mr. Stauber. Chief, this summer, can you give us an idea? 
Just a rough ballpark.
    Mr. Moore. I don't, because I wouldn't want you to hold me 
to something that I haven't had discussions with the local 
folks----
    Mr. Stauber. Remember, in jest, our summers are shorter in 
Minnesota.
    Mr. Moore. I know.
    Mr. Stauber. It is a time frame.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Stauber. OK. If you are unable to fix any of these 
issues administratively, I expect your agency's assistance in 
legislation that will rectify these problems in statute.
    And lastly, I do want to thank you for the Chippewa and 
Superior continuing to produce timber. However, our work is not 
done. Our counties manage a lot of checkerboard land. Will the 
Administration support counties retaining receipts from the 
good neighbor management?
    Mr. Moore. I believe we would. Because we think that that 
is a way to increase the amount of use for GNA, and not only 
for counties but for tribes, as well.
    Mr. Stauber. Right. And I think that putting forth a Good 
Neighbor Authority, good neighbor management, is important to 
also recognize the cost to the counties to do so. There has to 
be that reimbursement back, so they can cover their costs.
    Chief Moore, I appreciate you being here today, and I look 
forward to continued conversations to protect the opportunity 
for us all to enjoy our national forests. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you. The gentleman yields and the Chair 
recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming, Ms. Hageman.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat 
it, and government is always trying to fix its last solution. 
And I would say that those two sentences for me epitomize the 
failures of the regulatory over-reach that we see quite often 
with the management of the national forests.
    In 2001, the USDA U.S. Forest Service promulgated the 
roadless rule, which prohibited timber harvesting and road 
construction on 58.5 million acres of National Forest Service 
lands, or approximately one-third of the entirety of our 
national forests in the United States, including 3.2 million 
acres in the state of Wyoming. Despite the GAO report stating 
that such an action would limit the Forest Service from safely 
thinning dense forests or improving resistance to insects and 
diseases that otherwise kill trees, thereby adding to fuel 
loads, the agency moved forward with the rule.
    I have the GAO report. It was issued in November 2000, and 
there was very important information included in there, 
including the fact that the Forest Service recognized at the 
time that, should the rule be adopted, it would prohibit the 
construction of roads, even if such a road would help the 
agency to restore and maintain desired ecological conditions.
    The rule also would not authorize road construction or 
reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas to restore and 
maintain ecological sustainability. And national forests could 
generally not construct a road to thin stands of trees and 
mechanically remove underbrush and dead vegetation to reduce 
the risk of uncontrollable and potentially catastrophic fire, 
or to improve the forest resistance to insects and disease that 
otherwise could kill trees and add to fuel loads.
    There were numerous national forests throughout the country 
that were extremely concerned and opposed the roadless rule 
because they recognized what it would do. And, in fact, we now 
know what it has done, which it is responsible for the 
catastrophic forest fires we have seen, and it is also 
responsible for the pine beetle outbreak that we have suffered 
in the interior West.
    According to this report, officials on several national 
forests included in our review voiced concerns about the long-
term impacts of the roadless rule. For example, officials on 
the Routt National Forest anticipated an outbreak of beetles 
resulting from a catastrophic windstorm in 1997 that felled 
13,000 acres of trees in or adjacent to roadless areas on the 
forest. They believed that the preferred alternative, the 
roadless rule, would not allow them to construct the roads 
necessary to remove trees in roadless areas that in the future 
may become infected by beetles currently living within this 
deadfall. And, in fact, Chief Moore, that is exactly what has 
happened, hasn't it?
    Mr. Moore. I think you very eloquently described some of 
the challenges that we have with the roadless rule.
    Ms. Hageman. Yes. The roadless rule failed us in terms of 
being able to manage our national forests. Wouldn't that be 
fair to say?
    Mr. Moore. Well, it has certainly presented some challenges 
to us, which we are realizing now.
    Ms. Hageman. But you knew back in 2000, not you, but the 
Forest Service was warned way back in 2000--and there were many 
people, including Forest Service personnel from all over the 
United States, who actually begged the National Forest Service, 
I have the letters, to please not adopt the roadless rule 
because it was going to result in exactly what has happened, 
which is catastrophic forest fire and pine beetle outbreak and 
devastation throughout the interior West. Correct?
    Mr. Moore. I am not sure what you have read, but I stand by 
the statement I made just now.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. What is your plan to increase access to 
roadless areas so that you can monitor, detect, and treat bark 
beetle infestations in the future?
    Mr. Moore. Well, I think that is part of anytime these 
bills have been passed, Congresswoman, is that we need to sit 
down----
    Ms. Hageman. That wasn't a bill, that was a regulation.
    Mr. Moore. Well, any time even that regulations are there, 
we need to sit down and really look at the implications of that 
regulation.
    Ms. Hageman. So, in fact, you haven't been doing that in 
your position as forest chief up to this point, recognizing, to 
use your terminology, that the roadless rule created very 
serious challenges for the National Forest Service?
    Mr. Moore. Well, I am recognizing that we do have 
challenges with the roadless rule.
    And no, I have not, because I have only been in the job for 
a little while, and that has not been my focus.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Even though it affects one-third of our 
national forests.
    Mr. Moore. We have gone on record saying that our forests 
need to be managed, the vegetation needs to be removed because 
it contributes to disease and insect outbreak, as well as 
wildfires.
    Ms. Hageman. On a related note, yes or no, is it a priority 
for you to ensure that Western states that are vulnerable to 
extreme wildfires have streamlined tools to increase the pace 
of wildfire risk protection?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, all forests.
    Ms. Hageman. And is Wyoming a Western state?
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    Ms. Hageman. The Wyoming delegation sent you a letter on 
March 15, 2023, asking as to why we were excluded from the 
management commission and the 10-year strategy that you have 
put together. Will you add Wyoming to the Wildland Fire 
Mitigation Management Commission and 10-year strategy?
    Mr. Moore. We are always looking for ways to improve what 
we are doing, Congresswoman, but let me, if I could, just 
address Wyoming. Even though Wyoming does not have one of the 
21 priority landscapes yet, we are putting $10 million in this 
year's budget toward Wyoming, trying to protect some of those 
areas.
    Ms. Hageman. $10 million for 9.2 million acres of land?
    Mrs. Boebert. The gentlewoman's time has expired. The 
gentleman may answer the question.
    Mr. Moore. Yes, but keep in mind we are doing other 
treatments in Wyoming, as well. I had mentioned one of the 
pilot projects we have, where we are taking timber out of 
California and moving it into Hulett, Wyoming to help really 
stabilize the wood industry. So, that is having a positive 
impact not only in Wyoming, but also South Dakota, as well, on 
the Black Hills.
    So, we are recognizing the need to do a lot more than what 
we are currently doing all across the West----
    Ms. Hageman. But that isn't treating our national forests.
    Mrs. Boebert. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Ms. Hageman. I would ask that you respond to our letter in 
writing, please.
    Mr. Moore. Sure, yes.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you. And as the Chair, I recognize 
myself for 5 minutes.
    I want to thank you so much, Chief Moore, for being here.
    The Forest Service estimates 63 million acres are currently 
at risk of catastrophic wildfire, and each year nearly 10 
million acres in the United States catch on fire. Instead of 
engaging in active management to reduce the size and number of 
wildfires, this Administration chose to spend billions on the 
back end, putting out wildfires.
    From 2015 to 2020, $14.1 billion of taxpayer money was 
spent just extinguishing fires. This is the result of poor 
forest management, frivolous lawsuits filed by radical 
environmentalists, unnecessary red tape from the Federal 
bureaucracy, and policies that prioritize funding for 
suppression as opposed to active management. The last 2 years 
under Democrat control have left my district on fire, 
literally.
    Chief Moore, as you know, wildfires continue to deliver 
historic devastations to our Western states. In my home state 
of Colorado, four of the five worst wildfires in state history 
have all occurred since 2018, and the problem is only getting 
worse. Colorado is ranked third worst in the country for 
properties at high extreme risk of wildfire damage. The need 
for more active forest management in Colorado could not be more 
apparent.
    Despite the clear need, last year the Forest Service Rocky 
Mountain Region saw a decrease of nearly 20 percent in timber 
output from the previous year's amount. Chief Moore, what is 
being done to ensure that the level of timber output and active 
forest management actually increases in Colorado and the Rocky 
Mountain Region?
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Congresswoman. Let me start by saying 
that the forests have not been poorly managed. I think there 
has been a lack of management taking place, and a lot of that--
--
    Mrs. Boebert. I could agree with that.
    Mr. Moore [continuing]. Is due directly to the resources 
that we have not been able to get until recently. So, what you 
see us trying to do now is build the infrastructure so that we 
can be more effective in how much we are able to provide by 
treating the landscape.
    And this past year, between BIL and IRA funding, we have 
tried to build a foundation of the structure to be more 
successful in some of the outputs that we are looking at. We 
are looking at hiring more people. We have looked at creating 
more collaboratives to work with the communities. And now that 
we have done a lot of that, now it is really about hitting the 
ground.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you.
    Mr. Moore. This year you will see us hitting the ground, 
and you will see much more coming out in terms of productivity.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Chief Moore. I would agree that 
there is a lack of forest management, but that also includes 
not just infrastructure, but just the red tape from the Federal 
bureaucracy, the frivolous lawsuits that have taken place, the 
designations that prevent us from managing our forests.
    Chief Moore, diminishing timber sales allotted by the 
Forest Service have led to mill closures across the country in 
recent years, including in my district. There are legitimate 
infrastructure concerns throughout the West as sawmills that 
need reliable Federal timber continue to shutter as the Forest 
Service fails to deliver. What is the Forest Service's plan to 
turn around the trend of mill closures in the West?
    Mr. Moore. Well, I just mentioned earlier to the 
Congresswoman from Wyoming on what we are trying to do with the 
industry to try to maintain the existing infrastructure and 
yet, at the same time, introducing new opportunities through 
cross-laminated timber, also biochar opportunities, which 
creates jobs.
    The other part of the bill that is allowing us to support 
the existing infrastructure is to look at mill modifications, 
modernizing. We have spent quite a few dollars on some of the 
facilities, modernizing them to use the type of material, 
basically, low-value, small-diameter-type material.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you. And since our time is short, what 
is the Forest Service's plan to process hazardous fuels 
necessary to meet your wildfire strategy goals without more 
mill infrastructure?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, and it goes back to my earlier statement. 
We do not have the infrastructure in place, looking at the 
traditional infrastructure, and that is why we are looking at 
wood innovations to bring in new ways to utilize this material 
that we really have. Colorado would be one of those states that 
has this type of material, because, as you know, you have lost 
the infrastructure there, by and large.
    Mrs. Boebert. Right. Thank you, Chief Moore.
    I think it is clear House Republicans have real solutions 
to prevent catastrophic wildfires and protect our local 
communities and improve the health of our nation's forests, all 
while saving taxpayer money. This budget fails to accomplish 
any of these goals.
    And I yield back, and Chief Moore, I want to thank you so 
much for your valuable testimony, and the Members for their 
questions. Thank you so much for your time for being here with 
us. I know you are headed to Colorado. If I am in the area, I 
would love to meet up with you there, as well. But, hopefully, 
we can have representation if I am not. So, thank you for going 
in person to Colorado for those meetings with our foresters.
    Members of the Committee may have some additional questions 
for our witness today, and we will ask that he respond to these 
in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee 
must submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. on 
Monday, May 1, 2023. The hearing record will be open for 10 
business days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Subcommittee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]