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


HEARING TO REVIEW THE NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM: SUPPORTING FOREST HEALTH 
                                  AND
                    CONFRONTING THE WILDFIRE CRISIS

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY

                                 OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                              MAY 16, 2023
                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-11
                           
                 
                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                           


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


                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
53-810 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2023 


                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

                 GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman

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

                                 ______

                     Parish Braden, Staff Director

                 Anne Simmons, Minority Staff Director

                                 ______

                        Subcommittee on Forestry

                   DOUG LaMALFA, California, Chairman

TRENT KELLY, Mississippi             ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon, Ranking 
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 Minority Member
JOHN S. DUARTE, California           MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ, 
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon          Washington
                                     GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
                                     CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine

                                  (ii)
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
LaMalfa, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from California, 
  opening statement..............................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Salinas, Hon. Andrea, a Representative in Congress from Oregon, 
  opening statement..............................................     4
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from 
  Pennsylvania, opening statement................................    12
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Vasquez, Hon. Gabe, a Representative in Congress from New Mexico, 
  submitted letter...............................................    41

                                Witness

Moore, Randy, Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of 
  Agriculture, Washington, D.C...................................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Supplementary material.......................................    41
    Submitted questions..........................................    44

 
HEARING TO REVIEW THE NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM: SUPPORTING FOREST HEALTH 
                                  AND
                    CONFRONTING THE WILDFIRE CRISIS

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
                                  Subcommittee on Forestry,
                                  Committee on Agriculture,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:16 a.m., in 
Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doug 
LaMalfa [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives LaMalfa, Kelly, Moore, 
Duarte, Chavez-DeRemer, Thompson (ex officio), Salinas, Perez, 
Vasquez, and Pingree.
    Staff present: Adele Borne, John Busovsky, Kristin Sleeper, 
Wick Dudley, Erin Wilson, John Konya, Kate Fink, Michael Stein, 
and Dana Sandman.

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

    The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. Welcome, 
and thank you for joining today's hearing entitled, Hearing To 
Review the National Forest System: Supporting Forest Health and 
Confronting the Wildfire Crisis. So after brief opening 
remarks, Members will receive testimony from our witness today, 
and then the hearing will be open to questions for our panel.
    So, with that, good morning. Welcome to today's Forestry 
Subcommittee hearing. As the title reflects, today's hearing 
will examine how this Committee and Congress can better support 
the health of our forests and ongoing efforts to address the 
wildfire crisis. Make no mistake, our forests and rural 
communities continue to face an unprecedented forest health and 
wildfire crisis. This is an emergency that we must immediately 
tackle on multiple fronts.
    The Forest Service plays the important role of managing our 
forests for ecological health, ensuring a reliable supply of 
domestically produced timber, and supporting rural prosperity. 
For decades, and particularly in the West, we have continued to 
see a decline in forest health on tens of millions of acres, 
and catastrophic wildfire on an unprecedented scale. Over the 
past 5 years alone we have witnessed some of the most 
destructive fires on record. As these fires become larger and 
more intense, more communities are impacted every day.
    The statistics are clear. In 2015, 2017, 2020, we saw more 
than 10 million acres burn per year. Six of the seven largest 
wildfires we have seen in California, my home state, have 
occurred in 2020 and 2021, including two large fires that 
burned approximately 1 million acres each, both in my 
Congressional district. The August Complex Fire in 2020 burned 
more than 1 million acres, and the Dixie Fire of 2021 burned 
960,000 acres. In 2018, we had the Camp Fire, which destroyed 
the Town of Paradise, took the lives of 85 people. And as a 
side note, the good people of my district provided me with this 
special gavel made with salvage wood from the Camp Fire, so I 
am grateful to be able to wield this in their honor as we do 
the good work that this Committee needs to make sure this sort 
of thing doesn't continue to keep happening.
    This truly is an urgent crisis. We need to act now. We must 
dramatically increase active management and speed up the pace 
and scale--an often-used term in this Committee in these 
conversations about forestry--of forest restoration on tens of 
millions of acres of Federal and non-Federal land. This 
includes activities such as prescribed fires, cross-boundary 
fuel breaks, logging activities--yes, we will say that word, 
logging--to thin overstocked stands, the use of fire retardant, 
and expedited salvage logging and burned area rehabilitation 
after a fire.
    Congress has provided the Forest Service with significant 
new funding to support the agency's 10 year wildfire plan. 
While funding is clearly needed to log and properly manage 
millions of acres at high risk of wildfire, I also believe that 
funding alone won't be enough to protect our forests and 
communities long-term. The agency will continue to be 
challenged by the regulatory hurdles that it has long faced. 
This includes lengthy processes under NEPA. Frivolous 
litigation only delays critical management activities. It also 
includes the latest legal challenge from extreme activists to 
curb the use of fire retardant, which we have discussed, which 
is an essential tool for firefighters to use and to slow the 
spread of wildfire.
    Looking ahead to the next farm bill, the 2014 and 2018 
reauthorizations provided the Forest Service with a variety of 
tools intended to help the agency better manage and incentivize 
more public-private partnerships, grow new markets for forest 
products, and help rural communities thrive. This includes 
expanding existing authorities such as Good Neighbor and 
stewardship contracting to leverage more partnerships that will 
increase landscape-scale restoration projects. It also includes 
expanded use of categorical exclusions, such as for insect and 
disease treatments, to help move along commonsense forest 
management activities with known beneficial outcomes.
    The 2018 Farm Bill contained a research and development 
program to help encourage new markets and infrastructure for 
forest products, and advance tall wood building construction in 
the United States. We must also encourage the construction of 
new sawmills, and other forest product infrastructure, to 
ensure the long-term viability of these partners. We need to 
have long-term commitments so they will build them. The last 
farm bill also expanded the Landscape Scale Restoration Program 
on cross-boundary restoration, and authorized new tools for 
hazardous fuels on bordering non-Federal lands. This Committee 
must build on the good work that we have accomplished over the 
past two reauthorizations, and again use this year's new farm 
bill to ramp up even more active forest management and 
restoration along the National Forest System. We should also 
encourage the Forest Service to use every tool in its toolbox, 
including new authorities provided in the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Act (Pub. L. 117-58), specifically, increased 
use of the fuel break categorical exclusion and the bill's 
emergency authority.
    Summer is soon upon us. We have already seen fires start, 
and the Forest Service continues to select additional sites for 
restoration projects. As this year's wildfire season ramps up, 
and as we consider reforms for the upcoming farm bill 
reauthorization, today's hearing is indeed timely. So we are 
pleased to welcome Chief Randy Moore of the U.S. Forest 
Service. Chief, we look forward to your testimony, and a robust 
conversation on the variety of issues--how did that robust get 
in there? I hate that word--a productive conversation on the 
variety of issues facing the Forest Service and our rural and 
forested communities. We also look forward to working with you 
on identifying ways that this Committee can best support the 
urgent work that we need the Forest Service to accomplish to 
lessen the risk of catastrophic wildfire.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. LaMalfa follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. Doug LaMalfa, a Representative in Congress 
                            from California
    Good morning and welcome to today's Forestry Subcommittee hearing 
titled, Hearing To Review the National Forest System: Supporting Forest 
Health and Confronting the Wildfire Crisis.
    As the title reflects, today's hearing will examine how this 
Committee and Congress can better support the health of our forests and 
ongoing efforts to address the wildfire crisis. Make no mistake, our 
forests and rural communities continue to face an unprecedented forest 
health and wildfire crisis. This is an emergency that we must 
immediately tackle on multiple fronts.
    The Forest Service plays the important role of managing our forests 
for ecological health, ensuring a reliable supply of domestic timber, 
and supporting rural prosperity. For decades and particularly in the 
West, we have continued to see a decline in forest health on tens of 
millions of acres and catastrophic wildfire on an unprecedented scale. 
Over the past 5 years alone, we've witnessed some of the most 
destructive fires on record. As these fires become larger and more 
intense, more communities are impacted every day.
    The statistics are clear. In 2015, 2017 and 2020, we saw more than 
10 million acres burn per year. Six of the seven largest wildfires 
we've seen in California occurred in 2020 and 2021, which includes two 
fires that burned approximately 1 million acres each, both in my 
district.
    The August Complex Fire in 2020 burned more than 1 million acres; 
and the Dixie Fire of 2021 burned 960,000 acres. In 2018, we had the 
Camp Fire which destroyed the Town of Paradise, California and took the 
lives of 85 people. This truly is an urgent crisis and we need to act 
now.
    We must dramatically increase active management and speed up the 
pace and scale of forest restoration on tens of millions of acres of 
Federal and non-Federal land. This includes activities such as 
prescribed fires, cross-boundary fuel breaks, logging activities to 
thin overstocked stands, the use of fire retardant, and expedited 
salvage logging and burned area rehabilitation.
    Congress has provided the Forest Service with significant new 
funding to support the agency's 10 year wildfire plan. While funding is 
clearly needed to log and properly manage millions of acres at high 
risk of wildfire, I also believe that funding alone won't be enough to 
protect our forests and communities. The agency will continue to be 
challenged by the regulatory hurdles that it has long faced. This 
includes lengthy processes under NEPA and frivolous litigation that 
only delays critical management activities. It also includes the latest 
legal challenge from extreme activists to curb the use of fire 
retardant, an essential tool firefighters use to slow the spread of 
wildfire.
    Looking ahead to the next farm bill, the 2014 and 2018 
reauthorizations provided the Forest Service with a variety of tools 
intended to help the agency better manage, incentivize more public-
private partnerships, grow new markets for forest products, and help 
rural communities thrive.
    This includes expanding existing authorities such as Good Neighbor 
and stewardship contracting to leverage more partnerships that will 
increase landscape-scale restoration projects. It also includes 
expanded use of categorical exclusions (CE), such as for insect and 
disease treatments, to help move along commonsense forest management 
activities with known beneficial outcomes.
    The 2018 Farm Bill contained a research and development program to 
help encourage new markets and infrastructure for forest products and 
advance tall wood building construction in the United States. We must 
also encourage the construction of new sawmills and other forest 
product infrastructure to ensure the long-term viability of these 
partners. The last farm bill also expanded the Landscape Scale 
Restoration program on cross-boundary restoration and authorized new 
tools for hazardous fuels on bordering non-Federal lands.
    This Committee must build on the good work that we accomplished 
over the past two reauthorizations and again use the farm bill to ramp 
up active forest management and restoration across the National Forest 
System. We should also encourage the Forest Service to use every tool 
in its toolbox, including new authorities provided in the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). Specifically, this 
includes increased use of the fuel break categorical exclusion and the 
bill's emergency authority.
    Summer is here, we've already seen fire starts and the Forest 
Service continues to select additional sites for restoration projects. 
As this year's wildfire season ramps up and as we consider reforms for 
the upcoming farm bill reauthorization, today's hearing is timely.
    I am pleased to welcome Chief Randy Moore of the U.S. Forest 
Service. Chief, we look forward to your testimony and a robust 
conversation on the variety of issues facing the Forest Service and our 
rural and forested communities. We also look forward to working with 
you on identifying ways that this Committee can best support the urgent 
work that we need the Forest Service to accomplish to lessen the risk 
of catastrophic wildfire.
    With that, I recognize Ranking Member Salinas for her opening 
statement.

    The Chairman. With that, I recognize my colleague, Ranking 
Member Salinas, for her opening statement.

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

    Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity 
to hear from Chief Moore about the state of our National Forest 
System, and to discuss what is and isn't working in the 
forestry provisions of the 2018 Farm Bill, the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act (Pub. 
L. 117-169). Forest health is a critical concern for 
communities around my home State of Oregon and the nation. 
Public and private forests alike provide critical support to 
our rural economies, as Mr. LaMalfa just stated. Moreover, 
healthy forests help mitigate climate change and foster 
resilience against wildfires and other climate-induced natural 
disasters.
    One point that I continue to hear from forestry 
stakeholders back in my district is that the farm bill 
programs, and whether they are voluntary conservation 
incentives to tree disease research, they all play an important 
role in rural prosperity. So I look forward to hearing from our 
witness about program successes, as well as programs that need 
to be revamped in this year's farm bill to improve our forest 
health, our communities, and our climate. Thank you for being 
here, Chief Moore, and I look forward to your testimony.
    The Chairman. Well, thank you, Ranking Member Salinas. Very 
economical on time there. I don't see our Chairman or Ranking 
Member, so I would request any other Members of the Committee 
that would, submit their opening statements for the record so 
the witness may begin his testimony, and so that there is ample 
time for questions during today's hearing.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress 
                           from Pennsylvania
    Thank you, Chairman LaMalfa and Ranking Member Salinas.
    I appreciate today's hearing and the opportunity to discuss issues 
before the Forest Service and the farm bill's forestry title.
    For many forested and rural communities, our National Forests are 
critically important for supporting jobs, providing a sustainable 
supply of timber, and promoting forest health.
    Over the past few farm bills, this Committee has provided the 
Forest Service with new tools and authorities intended to allow the 
agency to better manage. For example, we expanded the Good Neighbor and 
stewardship contracting authorities, and provided the insect and 
disease treatment authority.
    We've also used the forestry title to encourage new markets through 
initiatives like the Wood Innovation Grant program and providing 
incentives to build with wood.
    Along with the restoration work and fuels reduction projects that 
are underway and urgently needed, another priority should be to 
increase timber harvesting and get closer to our allowable sale 
quantity across the National Forest System. Doing so will have the dual 
benefit of supporting forest health and rural economies.
    As we move forward with this farm bill cycle, I am hopeful that we 
can further build on the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills forestry titles.
    Chief Moore, thank you for being here today. We look forward to 
your testimony and engaging in a robust conversation on these important 
issues. I yield back.

    The Chairman. So, as I mentioned earlier, our witness 
today, and we are grateful to have him here, is Mr. Randy 
Moore, Chief of the U.S. Forest Service at the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture. Thank you for joining us today, sir, and we 
will be pleased to receive your testimony. You know the gig, we 
have 5 minutes, but we won't be too tough on that. The timer 
will count down, you know the deal. Chief Moore, please begin 
when you are ready.

  STATEMENT OF RANDY MOORE, CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S. 
          DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Mr. Moore. Great. Chairman LaMalfa, Ranking Member Salinas, 
and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 
to testify before this Committee. During my 40+ years of 
Federal service, I have worked in many locations across the 
country, from North Dakota to Colorado, Kansas, North Dakota, 
Missouri, and I have also led the Forest Service in the Eastern 
Region, located in Wisconsin, as well as the Pacific Southwest 
Region, located in California. I have witnessed tremendous 
change over the years, including many authorities that Congress 
has added through the forestry title programs in the farm bill 
over the past 20 years. Each new farm bill has equipped us with 
essential tools that have enabled us to tackle resource 
challenges, strengthen work with communities and partners, and 
equitably serve all people of America. This Committee's work on 
the next farm bill is central to making forests and grasslands 
more resilient to our communities, making them safer in the 
face of increasing threats from catastrophic wildfires, 
drought, and epidemics on forest insects and disease.
    I want to be clear that reducing the threat of wildfire 
across landscapes is a top priority for our agency. Through the 
wildfire crisis strategy we have ramped up to treat the right 
places at the right scale using an all-hands, all-lands 
approach. Recent investments by Congress gives us a once in a 
lifetime opportunity to take bold and strategic action. We are 
working to do just that, to put every dollar to good use. This 
past January we announced investments of $930 million in 21 
high-risk landscapes in the West. This work benefits roughly 
200 communities, it reduces risk to infrastructure, and it 
improves forests. Our wildfire crisis strategy is also guiding 
significant investments beyond the initial landscapes, such as 
community wildfire defense grants across 22 states, using about 
$200 million from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. We are 
grateful to Congress for providing the resources to seed our 
initial work.
    Sustained execution, however, will depend on continued 
Federal investment coupled with funding and capacity from our 
partners. Tools in the farm bill play a pivotal role in 
reducing wildfire threats and promoting resilience. Families 
and individuals own most of America's forests, so we need 
management options that remove barriers and promote shared 
stewardship, as well as cross-boundary work. The farm bill is 
uniquely suited to do that. Through the Landscape Scale 
Restoration Program, we work with states to assist private 
landowners in achieving conservation goals. It ensures private 
lands remain as forests. Through Wood Innovation Grants, we are 
accelerating new markets for wood products and wood energy. 
Cross-laminated timber is one of these innovations, which is 
exemplified by the tallest building in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 
which currently stands at 25 stories.
    The farm bill also supports collaborative forest landscape 
restoration projects. They expand science-based collaborative 
work, and leverage partner dollars. This work has reduced the 
fire risk of more than 4.6 million acres. It will continue to 
help communities like those in northern California, who had 
recently invested $3 million in the Western Climate Mountains 
Forest and the Fire Resiliency Project.
    Thank you for the Good Neighbor Authority. We have reached 
380 agreements across 38 states, and we have tripled the timber 
volume under GNA since 2018. This tool strengthened ties and 
worked with states, Tribes, and counties. We access expertise 
and capacity for treating larger landscapes. For example, we 
have 26 active GNA agreements with Oregon Department of 
Forestry that have resulted in completion of 20,000 acres of 
non-commercial fuel reduction, thinning work, as well as 
wildlife habitat improvements.
    We are working hard to leverage available authorities and 
funding. Obviously, there is much more to do, especially with 
so much at stake. Your work on the next farm bill underpins our 
efforts to improve forest conditions and reduce threats to 
vulnerable communities and infrastructure. We look forward to 
working with you, and I want to say thank you, and I welcome 
your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Randy Moore, Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. 
              Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
    Chairman LaMalfa, Ranking Member Salinas, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to review how the farm bill 
supports forest health and aids our efforts to confront the wildfire 
crisis. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service greatly 
appreciates the valuable programs that Congress has authorized over the 
past 5 decades through the farm bill to support our mission and help us 
confront both long-standing and emerging threats to the nation's 
forests and grasslands. USDA looks forward to our work with the 
Subcommittee to ensure the Forest Service has the tools and flexibility 
it needs to address the wildfire crisis, as well as successfully 
implement the full breadth of the Agency's mission.
    Along with the tools and investments Congress enacted in the 2018 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, the bipartisan Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), 
the Forest Service is using farm bill authorities to confront the 
wildfire crisis, create new markets and technology for wood products, 
and restore forest health and resiliency through partnerships and 
collaboration across landscapes.
    Today, I will share recent developments in implementing our 
Wildfire Crisis Strategy and highlight accomplishments in our use of 
six areas of authority from the 2018 Farm Bill that are particularly 
important in addressing the wildfire crisis: (1) the reauthorized 
Insect and Disease treatment authority (Section 603, Healthy Forests 
Restoration Act), (2) the expanded Good Neighbor Authority, (3) the new 
Tribal forestry demonstration project, (4) the Collaborative Forest 
Landscape Restoration Program, (5) the Wood Innovation grant programs, 
and (6) the Landscape Scale Restoration Program.
    Climate change, wildfire and other natural disturbances do not 
respect land management boundaries; therefore, we need policies and 
management approaches--like those included in previous farm bills--that 
remove barriers and allow for shared stewardship and cross-boundary 
management. Throughout the 2018 Farm Bill, there are many authorities 
and provisions that assist the Forest Service in accomplishing our 
priority work across boundaries, particularly ecological restoration, 
support to communities, vital voluntary conservation efforts, and 
reducing hazardous fuels. Many of these provisions support our overall 
emphasis in USDA to work with private forest landowners and ranchers in 
looking for ways to foster new and better markets for them and continue 
to keep those producers on the land. In keeping with the Biden-Harris 
Administration's commitment to rebuild and strengthen the middle class 
from ``the bottom up and the middle out,'' we're looking for ways in 
which we can encourage and increase the number of revenue streams 
available to private forest landowners and producers in forested 
communities so that they can benefit, not only from the sale of timber, 
crops, and livestock, but also be incentivized to conserve critical 
resources and invest in climate smart agriculture and forestry 
practices to sustain resilient, healthy forests and grasslands. 
Together, our work with all the innovative farm bill provisions 
demonstrates our commitment to shared stewardship of the nation's 
forests and grasslands, while strengthening relationships with Tribes, 
states, and local communities.
The Wildfire Crisis Strategy
    In Forest Service, we are entering our second year of carrying out 
our 10 year strategy for confronting the wildfire crisis in the West. 
Our Wildfire Crisis Strategy aims to increase science-based fuels 
treatments by up to four times previous treatment levels, especially in 
those areas most at risk. Fuels treatments by the Forest Service, 
together with partners, have made a difference over the years. However, 
the scale of treatments is outmatched by the rapid increase in the 
scale and severity of wildfires as climate change accelerates. This 
strategy calls for treating up to 20 million additional acres of 
National Forest System (NFS) lands over the coming decade, and working 
with partners, including colleagues at the U.S. Department of the 
Interior, to treat up to 30 million additional acres on adjoining lands 
of multiple ownerships, while building a long-term maintenance plan. 
The intent for these treatments is to reduce the wildfire risk to 
communities, critical infrastructure, municipal water sources, and 
natural resources, and to restore and maintain fire-adapted landscapes 
so they are more resilient.
    Within IIJA, 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 across the country, including on these 
landscapes, we completed treatments on 3.2 million acres nationally in 
2022. We also accomplished these treatments in 118 of the 250 high-
priority fire sheds identified in the Wildfire Crisis Strategy. This 
work was accomplished despite numerous barriers including internal 
staffing capacity, lack of markets for small-diameter wood, and high 
post-fire workloads from previous seasons. The work on these acres 
directly reduced risk to communities, infrastructure, and critical 
watersheds.
    IRA funding provides the Forest Service an additional $1.8 billion 
for hazardous fuels funding in the wildland-urban interface. 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 investment landscapes, our 
actions will span 134 of the 250 high-risk fire sheds in the western 
U.S., with the investment we announced in January 2023 of $930 million 
on 21 landscapes. 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. This work will mitigate risks to approximately 200 
communities within these landscapes. The Wildfire Crisis Strategy 
builds on current work and leverages Congressional authorities such as 
those from the 2018 Farm Bill highlighted below, as well as other 
authorities such as stewardship contracting which has proven invaluable 
in our work. The Wildfire Crisis Strategy is also guiding significant 
investments beyond these initial landscapes. For example, in its first 
round of funding, USDA is investing $197 million from IIJA funding in 
Community Wildfire Defense Grants for 100 projects benefiting 22 states 
and seven Tribes. This initial round of investments will assist 
communities in developing Community Wildfire Protection Plans, and fund 
immediate actions to lower the risk of wildfire on non-Federal land 
where a Community Wildfire Protection Plan is already in place. Taken 
together, these actions and investments under the Wildfire Crisis 
Strategy will strengthen partnerships and support our work to mitigate 
wildfire risk and restore forest health and resiliency over the next 
decade.
    The Forest Service is very grateful to Congress for providing the 
resources through the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act and the 
Inflation Reduction Act to seed our initial work and put the Wildfire 
Crisis Strategy in motion. It is important to note that fully executing 
the strategy to treat 50 million acres will take continued Federal 
investment, coupled with funding and capacity delivered from states and 
all of our partners in this work. I look forward to continuing this 
important discussion with this panel and others.
2014 and 2018 Farm Bill Implementation Highlights
Insect and Disease Provisions
    The 2014 Farm Bill's Insect and Disease provisions (Section 8204) 
set requirements for designating affected NFS lands, enabling 
streamlined environmental review procedures to expedite projects that 
reduce the risk and extent of, or increase the resilience to, insect or 
disease infestations. Approximately 77.5 million acres across NFS lands 
have been designated under Section 8204 as already experiencing, or at 
risk of experiencing, insect and disease infestations. We work with 
state forestry agencies to survey almost 500 million acres across the 
nation each year to understand where infestations are occurring. We 
have the partnerships to work across boundaries--on NFS; Tribal; state 
and private lands; as well as other Federal lands.
    Through amendments to the 2003 Healthy Forests Restoration Act 
(HFRA), the 2014 Farm Bill also categorically excluded from the 
requirements of NEPA certain insect and disease projects that meet 
certain stringent criteria, including an acreage limitation, and are 
located within the designated treatment areas.
    The 2018 Farm Bill, through amendment to HFRA, established an 
additional categorical exclusion for projects that reduce hazardous 
fuels to be carried out in the designated treatment areas and that also 
meet other specific criteria and acreage limitations (Section 8407). As 
of March 1, 2023, the Forest Service has signed decisions for, or is in 
the process of analyzing, 287 projects encompassing approximately 
565,000 acres in 35 states using these categorical exclusions. Using 
the farm bill amendments to HFRA Section 602(d), as of March 1, 2023, 
the Forest Service has expedited the NEPA process, with signed 
decisions or analysis underway, on 26 projects involving an EIS or an 
EA, encompassing over 1.5 million acres in 11 states. Additionally, the 
2018 Farm Bill extended authorization of the categorical exclusion from 
HFRA Section 605 for wildfire resilience. As of March 1, 2023, the 
Forest Service has signed decisions for, or is in the process of 
analyzing, 79 projects encompassing approximately 125,000 acres in 34 
states using the wildfire resilience categorical exclusion. Taken 
together, projects carried out under all these authorities help improve 
forest health while also reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire to 
people, communities, utility corridors, water sources, and other 
natural resources.
Good Neighbor Authority
    The Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) allows the Forest Service to work 
with states, Tribes, and counties to perform treatments across larger 
landscapes through partnerships. In 2014, this authority allowed the 
Forest Service to enter into cooperative agreements or contracts with 
states and Puerto Rico to perform authorized restoration services by 
our partners on Federal lands. The 2018 Farm Bill expanded this 
valuable authority to Tribes and counties and allows states to maintain 
revenues generated from the sale of National Forest System timber for 
future GNA activities (Section 8624). As of March 1, 2023, the Forest 
Service has completed 380 GNA agreements in 38 states to accomplish a 
variety of restoration work. Timber volume awarded under GNA agreements 
tripled from 2018 to 2022, and we completed over 178,000 acres of 
restoration-based activities through GNA agreements in 2022.
    Our GNA agreements are predominately with state agencies, but also 
include 16 Tribal agreements and 15 agreements with counties as of 
March 1, 2023. In our Southern Region alone, for example, we have GNA 
agreements with one or more of the state agencies in each state and 
these have assisted greatly in restoring and improving forest health on 
thousands of acres affected by Southern Pine Beetle infestation and 
other natural disasters. Under a Good Neighbor Agreement with the 
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, we will work to integrate cultural 
and traditional ecological knowledge with silviculture and fire 
management on the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests in North 
Carolina. In the Pacific Northwest Region, the Washington Department of 
Natural Resources used GNA with us to replace a perched culvert with a 
bridge, allowing restoration of critical upstream salmon habitat on the 
Olympic National Forest and improving public access. GNA authority is 
extremely beneficial because it improves the Agency's access to state, 
Tribal, and county expertise and capacity to accomplish restoration and 
hazardous fuels reduction work across larger landscapes. This authority 
also supports working and learning with our partners so we can apply 
collective knowledge broadly on public lands.
Tribal Forestry
    USDA is responsible for managing millions of acres of Federal lands 
and waters that contain cultural and natural resources of significance 
and value to Tribes, including sacred religious sites, burial sites, 
wildlife resources, and sources of Indigenous foods and medicines. The 
2018 Farm Bill authorized a new Tribal forestry demonstration project 
for Tribes to propose projects on NFS lands that border or are adjacent 
to Tribal lands using the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
Assistance Act. This new Forest Service authority allows the agency to 
enter contracts and agreements with Indian Tribes to protect the Tribal 
lands and resources from threats such as fire, insects, and disease 
while being informed by Tribal values and knowledge. The demonstration 
authority pertains exclusively to the Tribal Forest Protection Act of 
2004 (TFPA). As of January 2023, agreements using this authority have 
been executed with Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of Jemez, The 
Tulalip Tribes, Kalispel Tribe, San Carlos Apache Tribe, Yakama Nation, 
Mechoopda Indian Tribe, Pueblo of Santa Clara, and the Cow Creek Band 
of Umpqua Tribe of Indians. These agreements are implementing 
vegetation management projects to protect Tribal assets and reduce 
hazardous fuels in critical and cultural landscapes while strengthening 
our government-to-government relationships with Tribal nations to 
achieve shared stewardship and co-stewardship objectives.
    In one noteworthy example, the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of 
Indians and the Umpqua National Forest in Oregon signed one of the 
largest of all Forest Service TFPA proposals, and the largest Forest 
Service self-determination agreement to date, to reduce fuels in 
strategically important areas of NFS lands that border Tribal lands, 
the wildland-urban interface, and private property. This collaborative 
work will simultaneously reduce fuel concentrations enough to enable 
firefighters to use treatment areas as potential control lines in the 
event of future wildfires and reduce the severity and intensity of fire 
in the treated areas.
    The IIJA authorizes the Forest Service to fund and implement 
projects using GNA and TFPA. As of March 1, 2023, we have received 17 
TFPA proposals exceeding $8.7 million for FY23 with a projected $25 
million in subsequent years. This is a demonstrated commitment to 
invest in collaborations and co-stewardship as articulated in Joint 
Secretarial Order 3403, Fulfilling the Trust Responsibility to Indian 
Tribes in the Stewardship of Federal Lands and Waters.
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program
    The 2018 Farm Bill reauthorized and increased the authorization for 
appropriations for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 
Program (CFLRP) (Section 8629). Through the CFLRP, we can accomplish 
critical collaborative, science-based ecosystem restoration of priority 
forest landscapes. These projects produce significant outcomes on the 
landscape, including reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire, 
eradicating invasive plants, restoring stream habitat, and 
accomplishing vital forest vegetation work through planting, seeding, 
and natural regeneration. Since the program inception in 2009 through 
Fiscal Year 2022, the Forest Service has funded 31 CFLRP landscapes 
nationwide, with fifteen such landscapes currently receiving funding. 
These projects have advanced treatment on over 4.6 million acres to 
reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire, with treatments prioritized 
in high-risk areas. CLFRP projects have improved habitat for over 70 
species of animals and plants and have enhanced over 1,800 miles of 
stream habitat. In addition, CFLRP has significant economic benefits in 
rural communities, supporting an average of nearly 5,000 jobs per year 
and a total of $2.5 billion in total local labor income to date, 
including youth engagement and job training opportunities.
Wood Innovations
    The Timber Innovation Act from the 2018 Farm Bill aims to encourage 
research on innovative wood building materials in addition to codifying 
the existing Wood Innovation Grant Program and establishing a new grant 
program, the Community Wood Grant Program. The research component of 
the Act is delivered through the Forest Products Lab which is part of 
the Forest Service Research & Development Deputy Area. The Wood 
Innovations staff within the State, Private, and Tribal Deputy Area 
supports technical and financial assistance for innovative use of wood.
    Through implementation of the farm bill authority, the Forest 
Products Lab partners and collaborates with the wood products industry, 
conservation organizations and universities to analyze the safety of 
tall wood building materials and to increase the use of Mass timber in 
buildings. The Lab also produces analyses covering all the stages of 
the life cycle of wood-based products and uses. Over the last 3 years, 
the Lab provided technical and financial investments for analyses to 
support the use of mass timber in multi-story structures located in 
high seismic zones. The Forest Products Lab also supports 
implementation of the Wood Innovations Act through agreements with 
universities to conduct research on innovative wood products for 
building construction. The Forest Products Lab currently has 78 
agreements with 36 Universities and organizations.
    The Wood Innovation Grant program and the Community Wood Grant 
Program support Forest Service efforts to build innovative markets for 
wood products and wood energy that support rural economies with more 
jobs and income. The financial support provided by these programs help 
create additional and more robust markets and processing capacity for 
sustainable forest management and hazardous fuels reduction.
    The Wood Innovation Grant Program (Section 8643) allows the Forest 
Service to award grants to individuals, public or private entities, or 
state, local or Tribal governments for the purpose of advancing the use 
of innovative wood products. The program stimulates and expands 
sustainable wood products and wood energy markets, with a focus on mass 
timber, tall wood buildings, renewable wood energy, and technological 
development that supports fuel reduction and sustainable forest 
management.
    The Community Wood Grant Program (Section 8644) supports facility 
expansion or new equipment for thermal wood energy (wood-to-heat) 
projects and innovative wood products manufacturing. In Fiscal Year 
2022, the Forest Service awarded over $32 million in grants for 99 
projects using these two authorities. In January 2023, we announced a 
Funding Opportunity for these programs, offering $41 million to spark 
innovation and create new markets for wood products and renewable wood 
energy. In total, 316 proposals were received, further demonstrating 
the need to support and build markets and manufacturing capacity. This 
was made possible in part by the IIJA and the IRA.
    The farm bill has catalyzed U.S. growth in mass timber 
construction, supporting forest management and creating jobs. Twelve 
new mass timber plants have been constructed across the U.S. and over 
1,600 buildings utilizing mass timber construction have been built, are 
under construction, or are in the design phase. For example, Vaagen 
Timbers in Colville, Washington, produces cross-laminated timber from 
forest restoration on the Colville National Forest and employs over 40 
people. Building with wood is beneficial to our environment as it 
replaces traditional building materials that can take significant 
energy and air emissions to manufacture. It's commonsense but worth 
underscoring that trees keep much of the carbon that they store over 
their lifetime when they're milled into long-lived wood products.
    Through the Community Wood Grant Program, we have supported 22 
projects for wood energy facilities to produce heat or combined heat 
and power, as of March 1, 2023. Located in a range of facilities 
including schools, businesses, manufacturing, and government, these 
projects use over 136,000 green tons of wood residues and chips 
annually. This supports renewable energy goals, economic development, 
and cost-effective heating. One project benefitting from a wood energy 
grant in Truckee, California, produces electricity through a biomass 
energy system for 14 municipal buildings, using hazardous fuels 
material removed from high wildfire risk areas. An additional 12 
projects were funded that supported innovative wood products technology 
for manufacturing facilities.
Landscape Scale Restoration Program
    Authorized in the 2018 Farm Bill, the Landscape Scale Restoration 
Program is a competitive grant program that promotes collaborative, 
science-based restoration of priority forest landscapes and furthers 
priorities identified in a science-based restoration strategy, such as 
a State Forest Action Plan. The Forest Service delivers the program 
through our long-standing partnerships with State Forestry agencies, 
Tribes, conservation organizations and other partners to deliver 
conservation projects on non-Federal land.
    From 2018-2022 the Forest Service awarded 255 competitive grants to 
support projects to 46 states, and five Territories. $62,000,000 in 
Federal funding leveraged approximately $71,000,000 in additional 
partner support. Funded projects reflect local forest conditions and 
state and regional priorities. In the western United States, many of 
the Landscape Scale Restoration projects reduce wildfire risk and 
restore priority watersheds. In the Northeast and Midwest, projects 
protect water quality and mitigate invasive species that threaten 
forest ecosystem health, wildlife, climate resilience, and economic 
value of forests. In the South, wildlife habitat protection to conserve 
threatened and endangered species is an important priority to ensure 
continued economic productivity of rural working lands.
    In FY 2023, the Landscape Scale Restoration Program issued its 
first Request for Proposals for Federally Recognized Tribes and Alaska 
Native Corporations to restore priority forest landscapes on Tribal 
land, including Tribal trust land. By working across landownerships, 
including on Tribal Forest land, the Landscape Scale Restoration 
program is an important tool to restore resilience to the nation's 
forests.
    More recently, with support from IRA funding, the Forest Service is 
standing up new programs which leverage the flexible Landscape Scale 
Restoration authorities given to us by Congress in 2018, but which 
represent a new and exciting body of work. We are in the process of 
developing these new programs to provide incentives to Tribes and non-
industrial private forest landowners to implement climate smart 
forestry practices that improve forest resilience and reduce barriers 
for underserved landowners and family forest owners to participate in 
carbon markets and other emerging market opportunities to keep working 
lands working. As we deliver these programs, we will also leverage the 
Forest Stewardship Program to provide needed technical assistance to 
individual landowners. These forestry experts will provide management 
advice and assistance to help landowners, on a voluntary basis, 
implement practices and access emerging market opportunities, including 
carbon markets. The Forest Stewardship Program is a partnership between 
the Forest Service and state forestry agencies to assist private forest 
landowners who are responsible for the stewardship of 300 million acres 
of forests (nearly 40 percent of the nation's forests).
Congressionally Authorized Land Conveyances
    I am pleased to report the completion of all three NFS land 
conveyances authorized by the 2018 Farm Bill:

   Section 8627, Kisatchie National Forest parcel in Louisiana 
        to Collins Camp Properties;

   Section 8631, Okhissa Lake parcel on the Homochitto National 
        Forest in Mississippi to Scenic Rivers Development Alliance for 
        rural economic development; and

   Section 8707, parcel to Dolores County, Colorado for the 
        West Fork Fire Station.
Conclusion
    We recognize that this Subcommittee and others expend significant 
effort to draft, negotiate, and pass a new farm bill every 5 years. We 
appreciate your efforts and look forward to providing input as you 
frame and develop the 2023 Farm Bill.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Chief Moore. I appreciate that. I 
see our full Committee Chairman, Mr. Thompson, has joined us 
here. Would you like to incorporate a statement or questions up 
front at this moment, sir?

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

    Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate 
that. Thanks to the Chairman, Ranking Member, and to the Chief. 
Chief, it is good to see you. Thank you for being here. It is 
much appreciated.
    I appreciate today's hearing, and the opportunity to 
discuss the issues before the Forest Service as we work at 
preparing the farm bill's forestry title. Now, for many 
forested and rural communities, our National Forests are 
critically important for supporting jobs, providing a 
sustainable supply of timber, promoting forest health, and 
quite frankly, backfilling where we no longer have property 
tax, in support of our municipalities, our school districts, 
our counties, and because of those public lands.
    Now, over the past few farm bills, this Committee has 
provided the Forest Service with new tools and authorities 
intended to allow the agency to better manage. We did that 
specifically in the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills. For example, we 
expanded the Good Neighbor and stewardship contracting 
authorities, and provided the insect and disease treatment 
authority. Other categorical exemptions: more landscape 
approach. And we have also used the forestry title to encourage 
new markets through initiatives like the Wood Innovation Grant 
Program and providing incentives to build with wood.
    Along with the restoration work and fuels reduction 
projects that are underway and urgently needed, another 
priority should be to increase timber harvesting and get closer 
to our allowable sale quantity across the National Forest 
System, that sustainable growth rate. Doing so would have the 
dual benefit of supporting forest health and, quite frankly, 
economic health in those surrounding communities. As we move 
forward with this farm bill cycle, I am hopeful we can further 
build on the success of the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills forestry 
titles. Chief, I look forward to hearing from you what 
additional tools that the members and the employees of the 
Forest Service need to be able to do their job.
    Chief, how are we doing overall, in terms of and on the 
national scope within the Forest System of green stick 
harvesting towards that overall sustainable growth rate, and 
are there some forests that you can point to that would be best 
that are doing well, that we may be able to look at their best 
practices of why they are able to get closer to where we need 
them to be for both forest health, and, quite frankly, economic 
health within those communities?
    Mr. Moore. Yes. Congressman, thank you. First of all, to be 
able to explain the whole timber program, and--I have 2 
minutes, it may take 15, but I will try to abbreviate it in 2 
minutes. But in general, we have a number of forests across the 
U.S. that are really maximizing their opportunities to use the 
tools to provide a timber supply. Keep in mind, though, it is 
about more than just providing commercial timber. It is about 
creating health and resiliency in our landscape, which requires 
us to look at removing some of those hazardous fuels that are 
not commercial grade timber.
    One of the things that we are really trying to push to 
complement the existing infrastructure is wood innovations, and 
we have invested quite of bit of money looking at wood 
innovations to utilize the type of material that we have out 
there that is serving as ladder fuels for these fires. It is 
cross-laminated timber, and the innovation behind it is about 
biochar, it is about biofuels, it is about non-cellulosic 
material. It is the type of material that you can put into 
concrete to strengthen the concrete. And I think the more that 
we diversify the current infrastructure, the better able we 
will be to remove that material off of a forest and create 
economic opportunities.
    Mr. Thompson. So, if I may, because I am running out of 
time here, if you wouldn't mind following up in writing, in 
terms of the whole question about how well we are doing towards 
that sustainable growth rate as an overall system, and then my 
follow-up question would be--I know that you all are doing 
great things, I follow closely our Forest Service lab 
professionals, they do a great job. The question I have, 
though, is it seems like we have been in a whole talking 
pattern about that, and that is only going to work when we can 
get it to commercialization. When we get that--all the great 
things you talked about, and probably more that we can talk 
about in the future--when we get that to commercialization, 
then we actually have a vehicle to improve forest health.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Editor's note: the information referred to is located on p. 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And, quite frankly, we need to concurrently work on 
economic health of those communities. That was the promise that 
our predecessors made when we took that land out of the 
private-sector to form the National Forests. So, Chief, thank 
you for being here today. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. My time 
has expired.
    The Chairman. No apologies needed, Mr. Chairman, I would 
like to now recognize Ranking Member Salinas for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief Moore, as you 
noted, climate change is exacerbating the wildfire crisis that 
the nation is facing. Wildfire seasons are expected to become 
longer, and fires to become more frequent, more extensive, and 
more severe. In Oregon wildfire risks are growing. We saw that 
with the Bootleg Fire last year, and even the wetter and more 
populous region west of the Cascades, which includes my 
district, it is likely to see a significant increase in 
wildfire activity. So to better prepare for and respond to the 
wildfire crisis, we need to expand our forestry workforce.
    Chief Moore, can you talk a bit about the role of the 
civilian conservation centers in training foresters and 
firefighters, and outline what more can be done to support job 
training, and how we get more young people into the hiring 
pipeline?
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Congresswoman. The Civilian 
Conservation Corps is a great tool to bring young citizens into 
this firefighting community, and we also have other 
opportunities with our Job Corps centers, training them to 
become wildland firefighters, as well as serving in other roles 
within the agency. We just recently looked at hiring 100 
additional forestry trainee-type professionals. We have 
programs in place where we provide college tuition, in some 
cases, for some of our young people to have a chance to go to 
college and pursue a career in natural resource management. So, 
we have a number of programs that are available that we are 
beginning to pursue, and now more so than what we have in the 
past, because over the last 20 years we have been losing 
resource professionals in the organization, based on the 
conditions on the ground with fires, but also just the whole 
budget situation.
    So, with the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, as well 
as IRA, we have been building capacity within the agency, and 
we are looking at a lot of different avenues to bring in young 
people into the organization, particularly resource management.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. And, Chief Moore, in your 
testimony, you highlighted several agency programs that have a 
proven track record of furthering reforestation efforts, 
reducing wildfire risk, and improving forest health, and this 
includes, as you mentioned, the Collaborative Forest Landscape 
Restoration Program, which has funded several projects in my 
home State of Oregon. Can you talk a bit about how these Forest 
Service programs also support the economic stability of our 
rural communities?
    Mr. Moore. Yes. The collaborative projects have been a real 
boon to a lot of small rural communities. And if I look at what 
we currently have on deck, we have about 30 large-scale 
projects across 15 states. And when I look at what they have 
been able to do, they have been able to significantly decrease 
the potential for fire across the landscapes. These projects 
are available to states, Tribes, as well as local communities. 
And in terms of investments, and the different approaches we 
are taking to landscape-scale restoration, we have selected 31 
landscapes across 15 states, and 17 of those landscapes are in 
11 states, and they are currently receiving funding in our FY23 
bill.
    In short, there is a lot of great value in leveraging with 
our partners. In fact, when we look at the amount that is 
invested in our collaborative projects, for every dollar that 
the Forest Service invests in those collaborative projects, it 
returns about $1.81. So, it has proven to be a really great 
value, in terms of leveraging Federal dollars with the local 
communities.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. Now I just want to talk next-gen 
forestry technologies and innovation.
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    Ms. Salinas. Chief Moore, can you provide us an overview of 
the new tools and technologies used to support reforestation 
activities, and is there more that can be done using drones, 
geospatial, and remote sensing technology to support the work 
of the Forest Service?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, Congresswoman, there is always more to be 
done. We are jumping into the technological phase fairly 
rapidly. We have trained well over 100 certified pilots for 
drones. We are looking at the application of drones for 
prescribed burning, for natural resource management. We are 
looking at the use of satellite data, combined with our FIA 
data to--the Forest Inventory Analysis data to do ground--of 
what we think we see from this--from the air. We are moving 
into the technological age.
    One other example I would share with you is--I believe it 
is in California, where, instead of using our lookout towers, 
we have put a set of cameras across the landscape to spot smoke 
or fires as they happen. So, we are pursuing technology in a 
much bigger way. We know that we have much more to do, much 
more to learn, but that is an area that we see a huge advantage 
for us in the future.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Salinas. I will recognize Mr. 
Kelly from Mississippi for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief Moore, how can we 
work together to prioritize and advance the use of wood, like 
mass timber, at scale in the marketplace? What more do we need 
to do to use mass timber in rural communities to build 
affordable housing, schools, hospitals, and other critical 
infrastructure?
    Mr. Moore. Yes. Congressman, I think what we have to do is 
further refine the research around cross-laminated timber. Even 
though cross-laminated timber has a great future ahead of us, 
we have not refined the research to the degree that we need to 
be using small diameter, low-value material. Right now, we are 
using it in a bigger way, but we are using commercial grade 
timber in cross-laminated timber. The key to cross-laminated 
timber in this country is to be able to refine the research in 
a way that it can use low-value, small-diameter material, 
because that is what we have in abundance. And so that is our 
focus. We are working with the university systems, we are 
working with corporate scientists, as well as the Federal 
scientists, to look at continuing to work in that arena. It is 
very promising, though.
    Right now, we have about 1,600 buildings that are built 
with cross-laminated timber. We have another 12 new facilities 
coming online. And so, while it is showing a lot of promise, we 
want to take that whole research down to use a different type 
of materials, because I think you will see a huge boom once we 
are able to refine the research in that way.
    Mr. Kelly. And I have been on this Committee for 8 years, 
and on this Subcommittee all of those, or at least most of 
those. One of the things that concerns me most is our inability 
to manage the timber in our forests, especially out West. We 
don't do controlled burns, we don't have the manpower, and 
then--and a lot of times that is for climate protection, is the 
reason we don't do controlled burns--and then we get these 
massive wildfires that create much more pollution and climate 
problems than if we had done the controlled burns. What are we 
doing to make sure that we are doing the controlled burns, and 
that we are managing our forests, especially out West, 
properly?
    Mr. Moore. So, Congressman, after last year's fire in 
Hermit's Peak, I called a 90 day pause in our prescribed 
burning, and that was to give us an opportunity to really look 
at how we are using that program. And we also brought a lot of 
our technical specialists from down south, Mississippi 
included, to look at how the South is maintaining the ecosystem 
that they have established through prescribed burning, or 
controlled burning. And so what we are doing is taking lessons 
learned in the South, and seeing how they might apply in the 
West. And now what we are looking to do is bring all of that 
together. I am going to be releasing a report here fairly soon 
looking at some changes in our prescribed fire, particularly 
out West.
    We can't talk about our success in prescribed burning 
because when one fire gets away, you have seen the damage that 
it can do. Because I could sit here and tell you that 
prescribed burning goes the way it should go 99.84 percent of 
the time, but that .16 percent when it gets away, we have lots 
of examples of the damage that it can do, and it is because of 
the condition of our landscapes. And that is why the 
conversation needs to be around vegetation removal in a much 
bigger way, but also looking at the innovation that is needed 
to utilize the type of vegetation that we have on our 
landscapes, because it is burning down communities, it is 
creating carbon in our environment, and it just--nothing is 
good about it.
    Mr. Kelly. And finally, my last question is--we gave you 
$10 billion from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and 
Inflation Reduction Act, and we are having a problem both 
recruiting and retaining employees. How can we best manage this 
money, or what can we do in Congress to make sure that we have 
the great Forestry Service employees who are both there, and 
who are experienced, and who are capable of carrying out. What 
authorities do you need from Congress to help you with this?
    Mr. Moore. Well, I think we have to first identify the type 
of employees that we are talking about. If we are talking about 
firefighters, I think we have a lot going on now of how we can 
recruit that. The challenge that I am having, as Chief of the 
Forest Service, is this: We have things in place on a temporary 
basis for firefighters, but what it doesn't recognize, and this 
applies mostly in the South and the East, is that we have what 
we call reserve firefighters who fight fires. In fact, we 
have----
    Mr. Kelly. And if I can, I only got 17 seconds, I would 
just say that everything you do to the left of a fire is--pays 
off ten times in dividends to what we do on the right side in 
firefighting. And I only have 8 seconds, Chief, but thank you, 
and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Now, we will now recognize the 
lady from Washington, Ms. Gluesenkamp Perez, please.
    Ms. Perez. And thank you, Mr. LaMalfa. And thank you, Chief 
Moore, for being here this morning. I would like to start by 
highlighting the challenges resource-heavy counties face as 
they work to support their communities with limited income 
streams. Skamania County, in the southeast corner of my 
district, is 80 percent National Forest Service land, which 
represents a significant part of Gifford Pinchot National 
Forest. Counties like mine often feel like we have to come to 
the Federal Government with our hands out to make ends meet, 
and I want to talk about ways to work towards economic 
independence.
    Secure Rural Schools has been a critical program, but it 
does not provide consistent income levels. One idea I have 
heard addressing this is community forests. Productive land 
from the Gifford Pinchot would be managed by the county, with 
supervision and continued ownership by the Forest Service. 
However, the income benefits would flow to the county, with a 
small percentage going to the Forest Service as a management 
fee. So, Chief Moore, I would love to hear your thoughts on 
this proposal, and any comments you have about how counties can 
partner with the Forest Service to find more sustainable income 
levels.
    Mr. Moore. Congresswoman, I think that is the challenge, 
that you have laid out here, how do we continue to collaborate 
to find ways forward? If I look at GNA as an example, the Good 
Neighbor Authority, right now we are making a lot of great 
progress with states. We are not making the same level of 
progress with counties and Tribes. Part of the reason, I 
believe, is because the counties and the Tribes can't retain 
the receipts the same as states, so I think if that is one of 
the changes that takes place, I think you will see much more--a 
much greater use of GNA authorities across our country.
    In terms of where do we go from here, I think the 
collaborations have identified a number of things for us, and 
one of the things that is identified for us is that together 
that--we are better together than we are separate, and that we 
need to continue to work toward this goal of doing landscape 
treatments out on our forests. And basically not just the 
forests, but just the landscapes in general, of all 
jurisdictions and ownerships.
    Ms. Perez. Thank you, Chief Moore. One thing I hear a lot 
about, and building on the questions from my colleague, 
Representative Kelly, are the challenges faced by the Forest 
Service employees in finding housing.
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    Ms. Perez. The Cowlitz Valley Ranger District, located in 
the Gifford, my staff has heard stories about seasonal 
employees who are living out of their cars due to the lack of 
affordable housing. I know the Forest Service supplies some 
housing, but it tends to be insufficient. The area surrounding 
the Gifford Pinchot is rural, and also lacks a sufficient 
affordable housing stock. All this means that many ranger 
districts are unable to attract or retain staff.
    In addition, there are already many who already live in 
these understaffed ranger districts who are willing, but 
unable, to gain employment with the Forest Service due to the 
challenges navigating U.S.A. Jobs' application process. Getting 
a resume through electronic filters and into the hands of a 
real person is a very difficult process, and we have all heard 
about folks who know how to game the algorithm to advance their 
resume through these electronic systems. So, constituents often 
ask if local hiring preferences, much like existing hiring 
preferences for veterans, could help reduce Forest Service 
staff turnover, help build community trust, and reduce staffing 
shortages.
    My first question is what can the Forest Service do with 
regard to housing to reduce turnover, and my second question is 
what can the Forest Service do to simplify the application 
process for residents of the ranger district seeking employment 
with the agency?
    Mr. Moore. So let me start by saying anytime we have an 
employee sleeping in their car, it is an embarrassment, so I 
will start there. I think the housing issue is much bigger than 
the Forest Service. I think this is a problem in our 
communities. If there are no available housing, there is 
nothing for our firefighters to stay in. Where there is 
available housing, are they affordable? And so that is the 
other issue. It is not just availability, but it is 
affordability. These are community problems, not just Forest 
Service, and I think that we need to bring all of our 
communities together to figure out solutions, because we are 
there for a service, and that is to protect the communities. 
But the communities also have to work with us to find those 
doable solutions.
    So that is where we are, in terms of housing. We also have 
the issue of mental health. Our firefighters are working now--
instead of fire seasons it is fire years, and as such, they are 
always gone from home because they serve this country. They go 
all across--wherever there is a fire, they are there, so there 
is very little time for their families, and after a while, it 
wears.
    Ms. Perez. And, excuse me, in our last few seconds here, I 
would love to extend an offer to have you come out and visit 
Skamania County or my district, come out for of our timber 
carnivals. It will be a good time, I guarantee it.
    Mr. Moore. I would love to. Thank you for the invitation.
    The Chairman. Does the gentlelady yield back?
    Ms. Perez. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Okay. Thank you. Boy, great points on the 
SRS, and the ability to keep that going. It is a battle every 
year, and on the housing side, when you see an L.A. Times 
article where they are debating whether, a town like 
Greenville, in my district, for example, should that be 
rebuilt?
    Ms. Perez. Yes.
    The Chairman. But why do we keep building these towns back 
up? These used to be where the people lived that got the 
resources that we all use, whether it is a mining town, a 
timber town, or an ag town, for that matter. So I guess the 
question is do we want to have these products, and do we want 
to have people take care of them. Thank you. Now I will 
recognize Mr. Moore from Alabama.
    Mr. Moore of Alabama. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
your robust leadership on this Committee, and I want to thank 
Chief Moore for being here today as well. Chief, in Alabama the 
vast majority of our forests are privately owned, working 
lands, actually, and so--I think that in my Second District 
alone 4.4 million acres of private forestland, and we support 
21,000 jobs, and $7.9 million a year in payroll. So, trees are 
a big business in our district.
    But according to the extension service in Alabama, more 
trees are taken due to disease and pests than are actually 
harvested for profit. So, Chief, can you expand on efforts of 
the Forest Service to collaborate with the private forest 
owners to manage pests and disease, please, sir?
    Mr. Moore. Yes. If I look specifically in your district, 
with the brown spot needle blight, that is a problem down 
there. We have a lot of data on that blight, and we are working 
with the university system, as well as our earth scientists, 
trying to find solutions to that. But we do have extensive 
data, and that is a good place to start, and we are working 
with state partners down there to find solutions that are 
doable. So that is where we are with the blight.
    In terms of disease and insects, throughout the years we 
have had problems with disease and insects, and we are 
beginning to see that we need to treat this the same as we do 
wildfires, at that landscape level, because disease and insect 
don't respect jurisdictional boundaries like we do. And in 
order to do that, we need to partner with our state partners, 
our local leaders in these local communities, as well as the 
Tribes, looking at solutions on how we address these issues.
    Depending on where you are across the country, there are 
different things that contribute to the conditions that we are 
in, and so, if I was to look at Mississippi itself, that is 
different than, say, looking at Michigan, the Emerald Ash Borer 
being a problem there, and it is different than looking out 
West, on some of the pine beetle issues there. I think every 
part of the country has similar problems, but the bottom line 
is that this is a problem for all of us. Our scientists are 
working diligently with the research, and our state and private 
partners are working diligently with state and local partners 
and trying to address that in a way that is acceptable.
    Mr. Moore of Alabama. Chief, I am going to change gears on 
you, but as fire season looms on the horizon, the Forest 
Service is being sued by extreme environmentalists over this 
fire retardant. It is a critical tool for fire suppression and 
for control. Do you agree that fire retardant is a critical 
tool, and what must we do to keep it in the arsenal to protect 
lives and property, and how are you working with the EPA to 
work through this issue with them this year?
    Mr. Moore. So, Congressman, fire retardant is a critical 
safety tool, not only for our firefighters, but for these 
communities that are experiencing these wildfires. What we are 
currently trying to do is work with the EPA on acquiring a 
Clean Water Act permit so that, depending on which way the 
conversation goes, that we are going to be trying to cover our 
bases. The other thing that is maybe not widely recognized is 
that we have a number of states that also will be requiring 
permits under the Clean Water Act. And so we may be required to 
get permits from the states, as well as from EPA.
    Mr. Moore of Alabama. How far along are we in the process, 
Chief? I know that sometimes these permits and the EPA can drag 
out. Do you feel like you are making success? Are you making 
any kind of headway with them?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, I believe that we are making success with 
EPA. I suspect, though, it will probably take another 2 or 3 
years to get that done. But--and that doesn't include what we 
might be required to do with certain states--or different 
states.
    Mr. Moore of Alabama. So what do you do in the meantime? If 
you are waiting to get----
    Mr. Moore. Well, we are going to continue to use retardant 
until we are ordered not----
    Mr. Moore of Alabama. Until you get a ruling?
    Mr. Moore. If we are ordered not to. I don't know if it 
will come to that, but we are going to use it until we are told 
not to.
    Mr. Moore of Alabama. And I think you should. What are the 
options if you can't use it? What do you do, Chief?
    Mr. Moore. Well, we don't have an option other than water.
    Mr. Moore of Alabama. All right. Thank you. I appreciate 
your time. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Moore, for that robust line of 
questioning. Remember the size of the gavel we got here. The 
islander from Maine, Ms. Pingree, is up next, 5 minutes.
    Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and we do 
have trees on islands in Maine. We have trees everywhere in 
Maine. We are the most forested state in the nation, so we care 
deeply about this topic, and I appreciate having this hearing 
today. Thank you very much, Chief, for being with us. I get the 
chance to see you both here and in the Appropriations 
Committee, so--always happy to hear about the work that you are 
doing.
    And I have been really pleased to hear some of my 
colleagues talk about the markets for wood, and some of the 
innovative wood products that I know the Forest Service is very 
engaged in supporting. In our state we are now just about to 
open a new facility that will create wood fiber insulation 
products for the home, and that is a conversion of an old paper 
mill. Like so many places, we have lost some of our traditional 
wood industries, particularly paper, and to see the conversion 
of these mills into other things, like wood fiber insulation, 
biochar, some of the products that you have already talked 
about, is very exciting for our state, to see that happening.
    So I just want to follow up a little bit more on that. You 
talked about more research needs to be done. Is that a 
financial issue, is that language? What else can we be helping 
you do to do that? Is most of that taking place at 
universities, or some of it at the Forest Service Wood Products 
Lab? And I guess the other question I have is--I feel like 
sometimes we also have to have an outreach and education 
campaign, that architects and builders need to see the 
opportunities, things like cross-laminate timber than can be 
stronger than steel, and just some of those opportunities.
    Also, I think most people don't understand--they are so 
concerned about cutting a tree that they forget if you cut a 
tree, and you use it as part of a construction project, that 
carbon stays in that tree, and you have actually sequestered 
that carbon on a permanent basis. So that is an important 
principle I think that architects and other builders need to 
understand so--of--I have talked a lot, but do you have some 
thoughts you would like to share?
    Mr. Moore. So, Congresswoman, you have answered that better 
than I could.
    Ms. Pingree. Sorry.
    Mr. Moore. But as you know, Maine has been a leader in not 
only using some of this innovative technology, but also being a 
part of creating it. So I want to compliment you, and the State 
of Maine, for how you have really jumped into the arena of 
innovations around wood. I think--when we look at the wood 
innovations and community wood facility grants, right now we 
have funded about 99 projects, and we spent about $32 million, 
which doubles our previous year's work. We are going to 
continue to move in this direction, because we feel that, as we 
look at the infrastructure in this country, we need what we 
currently have, and we also need it to be stable. We also need 
to diversify the infrastructure we have in this country now by 
using some of the new technology and the innovations that we 
are discovering through funding, and working with states and 
universities, as well as Tribal, and other Federal partners.
    I think it is a growth business. I think, when you look at 
biofuels, even biomass, there is still a use for that, because 
if you are not able to use it, then you are left with the 
results of wildfires on the landscape. And so it is in all of 
our best interests to figure out ways to utilize this material 
that we can create jobs out of, particularly in our small rural 
communities.
    Ms. Pingree. Yes.
    Mr. Moore. And so I would just add that to the statement 
that you have made, because I think you asked a question, but 
you also answered it in many ways, in terms of innovation, and 
where we are trying to go with it.
    Ms. Pingree. Well--and I really appreciate the work you are 
doing on low-value, small-diameter wood, because that is often 
the challenge that we are dealing with, and so many of these 
products lends themselves to that. One quick other question I 
wanted to ask you about. In the IRA there is about $450 million 
to support small and under-served private landowners with 
climate mitigation as resilience practices through their 
participation in--it says emerging private markets--I think 
that means voluntary carbon markets. So much of our forest has 
been able to take advantage of offsets, and the ability to make 
another source of income. That is already a market out there, 
but a lot of small landowners can't. Can you talk a little bit 
about how the Forest Service is working on that?
    Mr. Moore. So in terms of carbon offsets--so the Forest 
Service's work is not about offsets in carbon. It is about 
total reduction and carbon sequestration. Now, working with 
partners allows us to work in different ways, but in terms of 
the Forest Service--and I was--venture to say the Federal 
Government in general, we are looking at total carbon 
reduction, and that is different than the private market, where 
it is looking at carbon offsets. So, I want to say that.
    And the second thing, and here we partner with Maine as 
well on several of these projects, but we have the University 
of Vermont, even, $4 million in FY23, and this is based on 
Congressional directed funding in these areas. One of the 
places that you did mention, that I would like to bring up, is 
the National Agroforestry Center.
    Ms. Pingree. Yes.
    Mr. Moore. And you made a statement earlier about 
education, and that is an opportunity to demonstrate really a 
strong direct link between the latest research and giving that 
to the people who can put it to work. And we are discovering a 
lot of ways, in terms of how we help farmers out. I think there 
are discoveries yet to be made on how that center is working. 
But there is a lot of interest, and agroforestry has really 
increased over the past few years, and the demand for training 
right now has outpaced our capacity to provide it.
    Ms. Pingree. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 
letting me go over my time, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. You are welcome. I will now recognize the 
gentleman with the lakefront property on Lake Tulare----
    Mr. Duarte. That is the other Portagee.
    The Chairman. Mr. Duarte, yes, from California, 5 minutes.
    Mr. Duarte. I am a little bit north of Lake Tulare, but 
thank you. Thank you, Chief for being here today, very much 
appreciated. We talked about a lot of good: commonsense 
business principles, communities where people can't get homes, 
new product innovation. I would like to add to our dialogue 
here a little bit about the timeframes that good, solid 
forestry management, sustainable forestry management that will 
get us over time, from the overgrown, highly dense forests 
subject to wildfire, inhospitable to many endangered species, 
and just inhospitable and threatened, this habitat in general.
    When you work with a forester to create a sustainable 
forestry plan--let us say in the Sierra Nevada is a good 
example; it is one we are all familiar with--what kind of 
timeframes does that forestry plan have to cover?
    Mr. Moore. Are we talking about a land management plan?
    Mr. Duarte. Yes.
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    Mr. Duarte. If we look at the successful--in privately-
owned forests, like Sierra Pacific Industries, they tend to 
have a lot less forest fires, a lot better habitat quality, a 
lot better outcomes objectively than some of our public lands 
do that have been managed differently. Let us talk about best 
case scenario.
    Mr. Moore. So that is two different questions. I will start 
with the first one. In terms of how long it takes to do, we do 
forest plans, the states do the forest action plans. So, in 
terms of the Forest Service, we have abbreviated the time it 
takes to do a plan, so it is 3 years now, whereas it used to be 
about 7, 8 years to do a plan revision. So the Sierra Nevadas--
and whether you look at the Sierra or the Sequoia National 
Forest there, we had completed that plan within the 3 year 
timeframe----
    Mr. Duarte. I am sorry, I am not discussing the amount of 
time it takes to get the plan through. I am talking about, is 
that a 20 year plan, a 50 year plan?
    Mr. Moore. It is about a 15 year plan, sir.
    Mr. Duarte. Fifteen year plan? And that is the horizon that 
private companies would work on with the Forest--a forestry 
management plan that they would log, they would make some 
money, they would sell products, they would fulfill whatever 
regulatory obligations they have?
    Mr. Moore. Yes. Well, the plans are much broader than that. 
That is only one component within the forest plans.
    Mr. Duarte. Okay. So do the regulations, the endangered 
species requirements, do they stay static over that period of 
time, or is an investment likely to be made, then the rules 
change?
    Mr. Moore. No, the ESA, the Endangered Species Act, that 
stays the same until Congress decides to change it. But there 
are no changes in that from plan to plan, if the change is not 
made at a Congressional level.
    Mr. Duarte. Congress may not change the Endangered Species 
Act, but a new lawsuit may surface? The Cottonwood ruling 
obviously has major implications for what happens with that 
forestry management plan within that 15 year timeframe. If 
someone discovers another creature, or another creature gets 
classified as threatened or endangered, that could threaten the 
investment, threaten the plan, and have it go back to the 3 to 
7 year process we are discussing?
    Mr. Moore. Yes. Well, if you take the Cottonwood as an 
example, what could potentially be at risk is about 87 forest 
plans. And so you would have to--they would potentially be at 
risk of litigation. And, it depends on the litigation, the type 
of litigation, and what it would require us to do, in terms of 
revising the plans, or amending the plans.
    Mr. Duarte. So if anyone wants to capitalize on new product 
innovation, build new facilities, purchase forest land to 
rehabilitate and get it back to a healthy, sustainable forest 
environment, we are talking tens of millions of acres, right, 
just in the Sierra Nevada? We are talking about a lot of land 
that any government program is not going to be able to 
accomplish the rehabilitation of? It is going to take private 
investors making a nickel here and there off innovative 
products, finding the employees, getting these communities back 
on their feet, instead of them--instead of letting them just 
burn and kind of go away? But these long-term investments are 
challenged because the rules could change at any minute, 
anytime during that operation.
    Mr. Moore. So a lot has happened over the last 20 years, 
and the Forest Service's budget has steadily declined over the 
last 20 years, up until the bipartisan infrastructure 
legislation and IRA, the Inflation Reduction Act, monies. And 
so what we have been doing over the last 20 years is trying to 
add capacity by creating partnerships with different entities, 
whether that was Tribes, states, counties, to do a lot of this 
work, other Federal agencies, other state agencies.
    Mr. Duarte. I am sorry, but a lot of this work used to get 
done by logging companies, and grazing families that ran cattle 
that managed fuels through moneymaking activities that provided 
tax base, and jobs, and private-sector activity. That has been 
displaced greatly somewhat by Federal programs that get it some 
money--and maybe more money or less money, but never enough 
money to tackle the size of the job.
    And instead what we have is an uninvestable situation where 
the forests are overgrown, the rules are constantly changing, 
the communities are being lost in terms of housing, employment, 
anybody who would even want to live there, and the business 
models--for all the new products we may come up with the 
business models for investment just aren't there.
    The Chairman. You have to--we need to bring it home, Mr. 
Duarte. We can do a second round of questions, since we are 
whistling through this Committee so efficiently here today.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. So--okay. So save that thought, okay? Mr. 
Vasquez, let me recognize you for 5 minutes. Thank you.
    Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Ranking 
Member, and thank you, Chief Moore, for being here today. Today 
we are experiencing another historic fire near Las Cruces, New 
Mexico, the Las Cruces Fire.
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    Mr. Vasquez. I represent the Second District, home to the 
beautiful Lincoln, Gila, Cibola, and Coronado National Forests, 
four of six of New Mexico's National Forests. And as we enter 
wildfire season once again, it is imperative that my 
constituents and our National Forests are protected.
    Chief, you alluded to this earlier, but the Calf Canyon and 
Hermit's Peak Fire, one of the largest in state history, in 
fact, combined with the Black Fire in my district, in the Gila, 
over 700,000 acres, are the two largest fires in our state's 
history. And tragically, the Calf Canyon-Hermit's Peak Fire, as 
you know, was caused by the U.S. Forest Service through a 
prescribed burn. Now, this has caused a lot of distrust in the 
Federal Government, particularly in our Hispanic land-grant 
communities in the north, and our ability to trust the Federal 
Government to manage fire and forests in our state. We have to 
change that.
    Now, Chief, I sent you a letter on March 1st,\2\ asking for 
a response, along with Representative Teresa Leger Fernandez, 
who represents the Third District in New Mexico, and asking 
specifically what changes to your prescribed burn program were 
going to take place after displacing more than 400 New Mexicans 
from their homes, and causing one of the largest wildfires in 
New Mexico's history. I have yet to hear from your agency, have 
yet to have a response on that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Editor's note: the letter referred to is located on p. 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Now, you have mentioned earlier that .16 percent of a 
chance that a prescribed fire goes in a way that you would not 
like it to go. For us, that .16 percent means the loss of 
homes, of tradition, of culture, of grazing allotments, and so 
much more, so I would argue that there is no room for error in 
your prescribed burn program. Chief Moore, I would like to 
have, perhaps submitted for the record, but also here in this 
Committee, an answer to that question. How has the Forest 
Service changed its prescribed burn program since that Hermit's 
Peak and Calf Canyon Fire?
    Mr. Moore. So I will give you the response, and I will 
follow up with you on some very specifics--what we are planning 
to do with that. But in general, we are looking at making sure 
that, before any fire starts, that it has the latest 
technology. Also having real time decision-making ability. In 
the past, when you look at burn plans, for an example, it could 
be based on information that was made a week ago. Now we are 
requiring them to make decisions on the day of the burn so that 
you have the latest information.
    Also looking at things like portable weather stations, 
relevant--looking at large weather stations that covers a large 
area. And also using local knowledge. What we recognize is that 
people that are local in those communities understand the 
winds, they understand how fire behaves when it hits the 
landscape, and so now we are incorporating local knowledge into 
the decisions that we make, which we had not to the degree that 
we needed to in the past.
    Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Chief, and I agree that local 
knowledge is incredibly important. In fact, the constituents in 
my state I have spoken to have all said the Forest Service had 
to be crazy to have a prescribed burn on that particular day. 
And that is very disappointing, because, as I mentioned before, 
more than 400 New Mexicans lost everything, including their 
homes.
    Now we are facing the next phase of this tragedy, which is 
the compensation from FEMA. And investigation from ProPublica 
and Source New Mexico found that of the 140 households eligible 
for FEMA housing, only 13 had been awarded. That is after 400 
days of this fire. Chief, do you agree that this is an 
unacceptable result following a catastrophic fire caused by the 
Federal Government? \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Editor's note: the information referred to is located on p. 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Moore. Congressman, I am not familiar with the data 
that you have just talked about, but I am interested--always 
interested in working with you. That seems like that is a FEMA 
question that you asked, but----
    Mr. Vasquez. Well, Chief, let me stop you there, and I am 
glad that you said that, because this is where the disconnect 
comes from, and this is where I believe the distrust from 
constituents in New Mexico comes from. There is a disconnect 
here between Federal agencies. If one Federal agency causes a 
catastrophic fire that causes 400 people to lose their home and 
says now it is FEMA's problem, then people, rightfully so, are 
not going to have a trust in government. So how can the Forest 
Service work more closely with FEMA, which to this day has not 
awarded a single dollar, 400 days after this fire, to ensure 
that a problem caused by the Federal Government is fixed by the 
Federal Government? I understand it is not your jurisdiction, 
but how would you respond to those concerns?
    Mr. Moore. Well, I respond by saying I understand the 
frustration in how different agencies within the Federal 
Government operate. I would also ask you to be understanding of 
I don't know what FEMA's rules are, since I don't work for 
them, and that is not a put-off. I simply don't know what 
FEMA's rules are. But I will follow up and provide you with a 
response. And in terms of your letter that you sent in March, I 
will look that up and make sure we are responsive to you.
    [The information referred to is located on p. 43.]
    Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Chief, I appreciate that. And my 
constituents are looking for answers, and if I go to another 
subcommittee and ask FEMA the same thing, they are going to 
say, well, it was the Forest Service's fault. So, as you can 
understand, there is some real frustration here, and I expect 
to hear a response from you soon. Thank you, Chief.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you.
    Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Vasquez. Our hearts go out to 
you and your constituents down there in that tragic situation 
that, there is a really strong tension between the great need 
for more prescribed burns, yet the ability to trust it 
happening in your backyard under the right conditions. Local 
knowledge, we need to follow up on that more too, because that 
is something that would have been extremely helpful in fighting 
fires that I have had in my neighborhood as well, so I look 
forward to working with you on that too.
    Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, sir.
    The Chairman. I will now recognize Mrs. DeRemer--
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. It is okay.
    The Chairman. I am going to screw it up.
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. It is kind of a long name, it is okay.
    The Chairman. I know better.
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Well, thank you.
    The Chairman. Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you.
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was really 
appreciating my colleague, Mr. Duarte's, line of questioning, 
so if I do have time, I wouldn't mind yielding back to some 
further questions that way, but you offered a round two, these 
are going to be specific, Chief Moore, to Oregon. In your 
testimony you discussed your staff's work with Cow Creek Band 
of Umpqua Tribe of Indians on a Tribal Forest Protection Act 
(Pub. L. 108-278) proposal and self-determination (Pub. L. 93-
638) agreement. This agreement's goal is to reduce hazardous 
fuels on National Forest System lands that border Tribal lands 
and private property.
    I do appreciate this vital partnership to reduce wildfire 
risk, but it is clear we really do need to do more. I would 
like to hear from you on what challenges the Forest Service 
still faces in successfully treating both Federal and non-
Federal lands over the next 10 years. And, follow up to that, 
how exactly Congress can help you address these barriers?
    Mr. Moore. So thank you for the question, Congresswoman. I 
think we are beginning to make a lot of progress working across 
boundaries. As a matter of fact, no matter which state you go 
in, whether it is Oregon, or whether it is any other state, 
what you will find is that we have all agreed on one thing, and 
that is we are working across boundaries if we are going to 
make a difference. And that goes back to the all-lands, all-
hands approach to try and address some of these significant 
issues that we have on the landscape. So whether you are 
talking about tornado damage, hurricane, disease and insects, 
or fire, we would not be successful if we don't work together 
and across jurisdictional boundaries.
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. So a follow-up to that, then, what 
impact can we expect to see from projects using the Tribal 
Forest Protection Act and the Good Neighbor Agreements, is one, 
and then will it have an impact on timber volume sold over the 
long-term?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, I believe so, and I will use a couple of 
examples. If I look at the Good Neighbor Authorities that we 
have in Wisconsin--now, we are looking at about 25 to 35 
million board-feet of timber working with them, so that is an 
increase. When I look at working with the Tribes, we are also 
working in ways that they are providing a sustainable flow of 
wood as well through the GNA.
    Now, the Tribes are not using that as much as the states, 
primarily because they can't keep the receipts the same as the 
states, same as with counties. The counties and the Tribes are 
in the same boat, and I believe that is something in 
consideration now in the new farm bill, is to include the 
Tribes and the counties, and treat them the same as we do 
states, in terms of keeping the receipts to use them.
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. I will just do a quick follow-up--
well, actually, changing direction a little bit, climate 
resilience. In the agency's current advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking on climate resilience, it states that currently the 
Forest Service commercially harvests \1/10\ of 1 percent of 
acres within the National Forest System each year, while noting 
an increase in disturbances driven primarily by overstocked 
forests that are susceptible to insects, disease, and wildfire, 
which you have touched on. Can you explain to me how the Forest 
Service harvests so little from the National Forest System 
lands, yet you mention overstocked forests as the primary 
driver of disturbance? And a follow-up to that is do you 
consider harvesting timber to be a climate-smart forestry 
practice?
    Mr. Moore. So last question first, okay?
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Okay.
    Mr. Moore. Yes, I think forestry, and the science behind 
forestry, would say that, and the way it is used, it is 
certainly climate-smart. In terms of your previous question, 
for context, we have 193 million acres of National Forest 
System lands in this country. A lot of that land is not set 
aside for timber harvesting, so you are not going to be 
harvesting those lands. For instance, wilderness areas are set 
aside. We have grasslands set aside. If you look at some of the 
hazardous fuel reduction work that we are doing now, there are 
not commercial timber opportunities there.
    The reason I say that is because we have to broaden the 
discussion significantly. We have to talk about wood 
innovations. We have to diversify the infrastructure in the 
industry so that it utilizes the material that we have, which 
will sustain, and even create, more jobs, particularly in our 
small rural communities. The traditional infrastructure that we 
have is looking at commercial timber, and we will always need 
that, but we have so much other material out there, small-
diameter, low-value material that I think we have the 
opportunity, with innovations, to create additional jobs to 
diversify the whole infrastructure that we have in this 
country. So I want to do that. You have steep slopes that you 
cannot harvest off of. I mentioned grasslands, wilderness 
areas. We have certain areas that is not allowed on that. So 
when you take away all of that land, that percentage that we 
are harvesting is going to be higher.
    But now I am also the--I will be the first to tell you that 
we are not taking nearly enough vegetation off the landscape, 
and it is creating a hazardous condition out there for us, and 
we need to be able to do much more than that. I can give you an 
example. You didn't ask for it. Chairman, do we have time? So 
let me take the last couple of decades, and if I use 2020 as 
kind of a benchmark, we sold about 1.9 billion board-feet of 
timber at the time. And by 2021, that 1.9 billion had jumped to 
2.5 billion board-feet that we sold. In the last 5 years, on 
average, we have sold about 3 billion board-feet.
    Now, with the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, we are 
looking to increase that up to about 4 billion board-feet, and 
that is on a sustainable level that we are planning to do, and 
a lot of that takes into consideration new innovations that we 
have in wood that is going to help us get there. It also 
includes monies being spent on the bipartisan infrastructure 
legislation to upgrade existing wood facilities, like wood 
mills, logging mills, retrofit them, and try to stabilize that 
infrastructure that we have. And so we are planning to do all 
of these things over time to increase the amount of vegetation 
we take off the landscape, because we know that it is critical 
that we do, but also create new jobs, particularly for our 
small rural communities.
    Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Chief Moore. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, my time has expired.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. I will 
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Chief Moore, how many board-feet are growing on our 193 
million acres of Forest Service land per year?
    Mr. Moore. I don't have that answer. I can get that to you, 
Congressman.
    The Chairman. You don't know how many new board-feet grow 
per year on the----
    Mr. Moore. Well, I don't know how the question is being 
asked. For example----
    The Chairman. Well, you said you have increased the harvest 
to about 4 billion board-feet per year. I just wonder at what 
pace or scale, so to speak, are we keeping up with new growth?
    Mr. Moore. Well, I want to make sure that we have the right 
context, Congressman, because you can't just look categorically 
across 193 million acres and say that you have this much growth 
when that much growth is not really available to even be 
considered for harvesting.
    The Chairman. Well, that is where I am going to go with my 
next question there. So would you say that the number of board-
feet growing is exceeding the amount of harvest by many fold, 
or what do you think?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, we are clearly not removing the amount of 
timber out there that we could be or should be, and most of it 
is budget driven, sir.
    The Chairman. Most of it is what?
    Mr. Moore. Most of that is budget driven.
    The Chairman. Budget driven? We are not giving you enough 
money here in Congress?
    Mr. Moore. Well, not to the degree that we need to be 
managing our forests. I think that BIL and IRA has given us a 
significant boost in increasing that opportunity, and now we 
just--if it is a one-time fix, then it is going to be good on a 
temporary basis.
    The Chairman. How much is the Service spending on 
innovating wood products to be used by private industry for 
making new products, new things? And you mentioned concrete, 
and other areas.
    Mr. Moore. Well, we have about $1.8 billion between the two 
bills to look at opportunities like that, and----
    The Chairman. Okay. So is it appropriate that the Forest 
Service is devising new ways to use wood, or should that come 
with the private-sector, that they would be creating markets, 
so to speak?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, we are working with the private-sector, and 
other entities, including universities, to----
    The Chairman. No, but I guess my question is, is that 
really your role, innovating new products, or is that something 
that is going to come from the big thinkers you have all across 
the country that are constantly creating new products? So I 
will leave that question aside here. So if we have money for 
that, how much did you spend on at least two occasions of 
shooting cattle in New Mexico?
    Mr. Moore. I can provide you----
    The Chairman. Eradicating cattle?
    Mr. Moore. I can provide you with the budget that we set 
aside for that.
    [The information referred to is located on p. 44.]
    The Chairman. You can provide that? Now how is that a 
mission of the Forest Service, killing wild cattle in the--I 
think the Gila River area?
    Mr. Moore. Well, I think if you look at our rationale for 
removing the cattle, they were wild cattle, and it--becoming a 
safety issue for our public that were visiting there.
    The Chairman. People visiting those rugged areas where the 
cattle are, that the cowboys----
    Mr. Moore. Congressman----
    The Chairman.--I am told cowboys can't root them out of 
there doing cowboy work, but people are in there?
    Mr. Moore. Congressman, cattle moves around----
    The Chairman. Yes, they do.
    Mr. Moore.--and they were moving around where we had public 
visiting, and it became----
    The Chairman. So hiring helicopters----
    Mr. Moore.--a safety hazard----
    The Chairman.--and hiring hunters to shoot cattle in New 
Mexico was a priority for the Forest Service over new uses of 
wood, or over prescribed burns, and all these other things?
    Mr. Moore. Well, Congressman, we have a variety of issues 
and concerns that we have on our National Forests, and we can't 
afford just to focus on one or two concerns. We have to address 
all the concerns that come in, to the best of our ability.
    The Chairman. Sure, sure. That seemed--especially when you 
are asked by Members of Congress after the first time.
    Mr. Moore. We have also been asked by Members of Congress 
to continue.
    The Chairman. Shooting cattle? Okay. Let us shift back over 
to the fire retardant. Mr. Moore from Alabama was talking about 
that. So what I hear is that the backup plan, if the tool is 
taken away by a court via lawsuit, is water. The backup plan is 
using water to drop from aircraft, instead of the retardant, 
and its properties of sticking to foliage or wherever is 
targeted. That is--is that what you said?
    Mr. Moore. Well, I said we don't have any alternatives, 
other than water, if we cannot use retardant.
    The Chairman. Okay. So tell us on the Committee, how 
effective will that be? Since my information on that is that 
water dropped from these distances, especially in a hot 
situation, in a hot fire, tends to evaporate before it even 
hits the target. How effective is that going to be?
    Mr. Moore. Well, it wouldn't be effective at all, and I am 
not suggesting that we use water. But that would be the 
alternative that we would have to make an attempt to----
    The Chairman. So this underlines what a grave situation we 
have if the retardant is taken away, right?
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    The Chairman. Okay.
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    The Chairman. So why did the Forest Service choose to 
oppose my legislation to ensure that retardant is kept while 
this 2 to 3 year period of EPA looking at it, a 30 year long 
used product--why did they oppose my legislation?
    Mr. Moore. I don't know that we opposed it, Congressman, as 
much as we would like to work with you on pieces of that 
legislation to address.
    The Chairman. Well, they had--they took an opposition on it 
in our previous hearing.
    Mr. Moore. Yes. But we also--there is--the intent of that 
bill we understand, and we would be interested in working with 
you on making the bill more supportable.
    The Chairman. So with 2 years to possibly get the permit, 
as you said yourself, in the interim there is no alternative, 
other than no retardant, and maybe use water?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, I did say that. Yes.
    The Chairman. Okay. All right. I have burned through these 
5 minutes, so I will come back and recognize our Ranking 
Member, Ms. Salinas.
    Ms. Salinas. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief Moore, in 
the Inflation Reduction Act Congress provided $5 billion to 
support forest management, planning, and restoration activities 
for Federal, as well as non-Federal, forests. Can you provide 
us with some information on this investment, and how has this 
additional funding been put to good use, and what successes 
have we seen?
    Mr. Moore. So on the $5 billion, what we had to do was 
build the structure for success. Initially we set aside ten 
landscapes that we want to focus on, and these landscapes 
consist of about 250,000 acres apiece. Since then, this year, 
we have added an additional 11 landscapes, which we now have 21 
landscapes, and of the 21 landscapes, it consists of about 20 
million acres within those landscapes. And when we looked at 
the landscapes themselves, they were about 250,000 acres 
apiece. And so what the wildfire crisis strategy is doing is 
addressing 31 of those--131 of those landscapes through funding 
of different types, whether that is Inflation Reduction Act 
funding or bipartisan infrastructure legislation funding. And 
so that is our plan going forward with--we are trying to 
address the problems we have, and particularly out West.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. So development of new forest 
products enables us to build in a climate-friendly manner, and 
can help support rural economies. Can you speak to how the Wood 
Innovation Grant Program is working, since it has been 
statutorily authorized in the 2018 Farm Bill and funding was 
increased in the Inflation Reduction Act? What promising 
products have received grants, and where do you see the future 
of forest product research and innovation?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, I think we are having a lot of huge success 
right now with wood innovations, and I mentioned earlier the 
cross-laminated timber, CLT. We now have 16 buildings that are 
being built with this, and we are looking for that to triple at 
the end of the year. Working with WoodWorks and WoodWorks is 
helping us to strategize and plan for different ways to look at 
wood innovations for use. When I look at biochar as an 
opportunity for mine land reclamation or farming, looking at it 
as a potential--particular potential opportunity for carbon 
credits, I look at biofuel as another opportunity. Using even 
biomass as an opportunity for energy--wood energy to be 
created.
    I think nanocellulose material is what I had mentioned 
earlier. It is a product used to strengthen material. I think 
that we are looking at a lot of different opportunities on how 
to use wood differently so we would have a much better chance 
of removing much more of the vegetation out of our forests that 
is contributing to wildfire, but also disease and insects, and 
just the whole changes in the climate that we are experiencing.
    Ms. Salinas. And then just to follow up on Congresswoman 
Pingree's questioning a little bit, what are we doing 
specifically to encourage commercial usage of some of these new 
wood innovation products?
    Mr. Moore. Yes. So we are working with--we have a Forest 
Product Laboratory located in Madison, Wisconsin, and they are 
working directly with corporations and others on utilizing both 
the material that the lab is helping produce, but also in how 
the lab is working with other university scientists in creating 
some of these innovations out of wood.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. So, as you are well aware, climate 
change is having a real impact on forests and forested 
communities across our nation. Can you speak to how state and 
private forestry programs, like the Forest Health Protection 
Program, help landowners ensure that their forests will remain 
productive and provide resource benefits, both environmental 
and economic, into the future?
    Mr. Moore. Yes. The Agroforestry Center is one of the 
examples that we have that can work directly with private 
landowners, whether it is farmers or wood growers in the 
country. And it is a great opportunity to put in one location 
both education, as well as the technical components of an 
agroforestry center. But, more importantly, it gives the end-
user, whether that is a farmer or a wood grower, the ability to 
implement some of the technologies that are coming through the 
Agroforestry Center.
    And so far, it is working really well. I think that is an 
area where there is going to be a tremendous amount of 
additional growth there, and I think the things that we are 
discovering are things that are going to lead us further into 
this uncertain future that we have around wood.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. I will recognize Mr. Duarte now 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you, Chief. Thank you--I mean Chairman, 
and hello, Chief. Try and keep you straight here. We were 
having a good discussion--we actually had it in another 
committee, Natural Resources, a few days ago, so you are in a 
bit of a circuit here. But if we are talking about--I mean, 
once we start talking about government budget appropriations to 
sustain millions and millions of acres of forest that are 
overgrown, that we don't want to burn uncontrollably, that have 
some significant habitat, recreation value, and sequester a lot 
of carbon, which many are concerned with, there is nothing 
better than a private-sector solution. There is nothing better 
than somebody making a buck grazing it, logging it, innovative 
wood products, and the more we move that to the private-sector, 
the better.
    Please tell me--you can have your choice. You can either 
tell me what the prerequisites are, as you see it, the major 
prerequisites for successful commercial logging operations to 
help re-establish these overgrown forest landscapes into 
sustainable, profitable, productive forest systems, or where 
are the best models in the U.S. that you have seen, and what 
can we learn from them?
    Mr. Moore. So I think the collaboratives are one way that 
we are seeing a lot of creativity in how we get work done. I 
think the Good Neighbor Authority, working with the states, the 
Tribes, and--as well as the local community--I think all of 
that is playing out now, in terms of how we are treating the 
landscapes out in our National Forests, and those lands 
adjacent to the National Forests. So I think it is being 
discovered now. The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 
Project is one of those. We have a number of those that are 
still being funded. And as I mentioned earlier, for every 
dollar invested in those areas, we are getting about $1.81 in 
additional work. And so those are examples of where we are 
having a lot of successes in trying to work across 
jurisdictional boundaries, and those are places where we are 
having a lot of success.
    Mr. Duarte. How many years until we are all caught up?
    Mr. Moore. Well, I don't know how many years before we are 
all caught up, or if we will ever catch up. I think that we do 
have a lot of work ahead of us, and I think it is the job of 
all of us to try to figure out ways forward on that, and we are 
trying to do that through wood innovations, when you look at 
what we have, in terms of Federal agency.
    Mr. Duarte. But--wood innovations, I mean, great. We have 
all seen new products, they are great: particle board, 
laminates, whatever. But we are importing wood now, right? We 
have overgrown forests, some of them old growth forests, they 
have been classified, and managed with more of a hands-off 
approach than probably what is healthy, that have a lot of 
commercial--conventional timber sitting out there that are 
getting more overgrown, when we could get back to economic 
private-sector logging that doesn't exhaust Federal resources, 
and probably contributes back to the states, hopefully the 
Tribes and counties, as you are presenting.
    Where--how do we get back to that, so that we can actually 
get across the landscape, restore our forests, and re-establish 
thriving rural communities, and the economic system that kind 
of--hopefully takes care of itself, in most cases?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, Congressman, I really think it is a matter 
of resources, and I will tell you why. I had mentioned going 
back to the year 2000, and what we have been able to gradually 
and steadily increase over time. During that same amount of 
time, we have lost about 40 percent of our non-fire workforce. 
And so while we have lost a number of employees that do that 
very kind of work, productivity has continued to steadily go 
up. We have done that by a number of things. One is looking at 
processes, streamlining those processes. One is partnering in a 
much bigger way to maximize and leverage what we are able to 
do. And I think if we continue to go in that direction, we will 
continue to see an increase in what we are able to do.
    Mr. Duarte. But the employees you have lost have been 
Forest Service employees, correct? The U.S. Forest----
    Mr. Moore. It is a range of people. It has been non-fire 
workforce.
    Mr. Duarte. Sure. Sure. But what we have lost more so is 
loggers, timber mills, right? The actual workforce that clears 
the forest and makes a dollar doing it. Although you have lost 
staffing, the more critical factor is we are simply not 
sustaining our forests. We are simply failing to maintain our 
forests in any semblance--we are going backwards in the last 
couple decades, rather than forwards, in terms of forest 
management. Is that true?
    Mr. Moore. Well, I think if you look at one specific piece 
of it, it is true, another piece, it is not. I mentioned just 
now how the amount that we are providing--of selling has gone 
up over the last couple of decades, not gone down.
    Mr. Duarte. But the--you are logging--you are taking more 
wood out now than you were a decade or 2 ago, but the forests 
are progressively getting unhealthier, and still becoming more 
overgrown over time. So we are not--we can--and the Chairman 
asked you a few moments ago, do we need to double, triple, 
quadruple, 10x, what order of magnitude do we need to 
accelerate our board-feet of lumber being taken out of our 
National Forest environments to recuperate, and then break 
even? And--I mean, if you are getting $40 billion now, or 
whatever your authorizations are now, what are you going to 
need to do that with a government program versus how do we get 
successful commercial forestry active again?
    Mr. Moore. Well, Congressman, keep in mind that the endgame 
is not to try and take as much timber off as we can, because we 
have Endangered Species Act concerns, we have Clean Water Act 
concerns. We have certain species that we are trying to 
protect. We have certain steep slopes that we can't operate on. 
And so the point that I want to make is that we--we are in a 
balancing act between----
    Mr. Duarte. But you are not balancing, I am sorry. 
Endangered Species Act in California, with the spotted owl, has 
let our forests become overgrown fire hazards, dumping carbon 
into environment, destroying species for other--destroying 
habitat for other species. Please tell me, and start with the 
Sierra Nevadas, where has there been an Endangered Species Act 
success?
    The Chairman. Mr. Duarte, we are going to have to allow him 
to finish on this question.
    Mr. Duarte. Sure, okay.
    The Chairman. Briefly finish that question. Or we can--we 
will go with round three.
    Mr. Moore. So, it is--what I am saying is that we have laws 
in place, and we have to follow those laws. And when someone 
challenges the work that we are trying to do based on what they 
see as damaging to a threatened and endangered species, the law 
allows us to try and be responsive to that. And sometimes we 
don't agree, so we end up in court, and having the court settle 
some of those debates. I think that is where we have been a lot 
of times, and so we can't just go out and maximize timber 
removal on these landscapes, because we have seen what they 
will do in our past.
    Mr. Duarte. Well, to be clear, I am not talking about 
maximizing timber removal. I am talking about getting the 
forests into an optimal, sustainable tree density so that it is 
ideal habitat, as well as a productive forest, an excellent 
watershed, and not a threat to local communities through 
excessive fire hazards.
    The Chairman. You will have to talk about that in the next 
round of questions.
    Mr. Duarte. All right. I will leave it alone. Thank you.
    The Chairman. I will recognize myself, in keeping with the 
timeline here, for 5 minutes.
    Chief Moore, following up on what Mr. Duarte was speaking 
about, is that when you say there are ESA concerns, and Clean 
Water Act concerns, the wildfires we are doing--are direct 
contributors, more so than any logging project I have ever 
seen. And we can go back to the bad old days 150 years ago, 
with clear cutting of hundreds of thousands of acres and things 
like that, but that hasn't been around for at least since the 
1950s or something.
    The contribution of wildfire is so much more detrimental to 
water quality, that washes all this ash and soil down into our 
brooks, and streams, and rivers, and lakes, and across the 
highways--Highway 70 is closed half the time up in my area and 
the species themselves are being burned out. I have been out in 
the woods where they go out and they have to hoot at owls to 
see if they are there or not before than can proceed with a 
project. And maybe that is all good. But, we are going 
backwards so fast.
    As you affirmed a few minutes ago, we are growing more 
board-feet per day by far than what we are harvesting. It is 
what Mr. Duarte, he is not saying it either, that we want to go 
out and cut every tree. It is a situation where we are not 
nearly keeping up. And so the priorities don't seem to be the 
emergency focus, and that is what I just don't hear from you 
over the years, sir, respectfully.
    You are a friend, and we have talked a lot, but I don't 
hear the fire in the gut over doing this thing, okay? And my 
people are sick of it in the district, and all over the western 
states. So when we say it is ESA's concerns, and Clean Water 
Act concerns--these policies are contributing more so to 
ruining those than anything we could ever do out in the woods 
in this present day and age.
    So when we talk about set-aside acres--let me drill down on 
that a little bit, wilderness areas and grasslands. Now, when 
new wilderness areas and grasslands are proposed, is your 
agency out there chiming in, advocating for them?
    Mr. Moore. I--Congressman, I think this whole discussion is 
about the laws that we follow that Congress is passing.
    The Chairman. No, but your agency has time to come speak 
against my bill on just simply keeping fire retardant around 
for the next 2 or 3 years while it is studied to death, okay? 
And so--wilderness and grasslands, you just said a bit ago, 
those set-asides mean you cannot do treatment in there. So is 
there something magical about these areas that the trees don't 
grow--they don't overgrow and become fire prone, even though 
if--there might be a steep hillside, or species there, or a 
threat--there might--something might get in the waterway? Are 
these areas--are these set-asides--do they have some kind of 
way of self-sustaining that they don't--they are not fire 
prone?
    Mr. Moore. Congress has approved the wilderness areas. And 
in that Wilderness Act, it also says that we cannot harvest 
timber in there. So these are laws that Congress is passing 
that we are implementing.
    The Chairman. No, the President names them. We don't 
approve them.
    Mr. Moore. Yes, but we have no choice to--then to follow 
the law, or even Executive Order----
    The Chairman. No, but do you have the fire in the belly, 
you and your department, to advocate: do not do these if you 
want to have the ability for people to go out, and manage, and 
keep roads open, and not have to study to death replacing a 
culvert with a 2 year NEPA process to do basic things? I need 
to hear, besides that you have time to shoot cattle, and 
advocate against my bill, and things like that, that you are 
out there with the fire in the belly to say, look, we are 
falling farther and farther behind every year. Every minute. 
And the people at home, they just can't understand what is 
going on, so we need prescribed burns, but in a way that 
respects what Mr. Vasquez was talking about from New Mexico. We 
need to be aggressive on that and push back on. Let me ask you 
about the categorical exclusions here.
    Now, we have had these in place since the 2018 Farm Bill. 
Do you have an idea of how many new fire breaks or fuel breaks 
had been created--what kind of acreage using these fuel break 
and emergency authorities to expedite projects so--to have 
basic fuel breaks around communities?
    Mr. Moore. Yes. So the linear fuel break CEs, so far we 
have approved eight. We have about another 20+ that are in the 
pipeline to be approved as well.
    The Chairman. How many acres are authorized that are used--
--
    Mr. Moore. I think so far it is about 20,000 acres, but I 
don't know how many are tied into the other ones that is in the 
pipeline yet.
    The Chairman. 20,000? And so, in round numbers, you govern 
200 million acres? 193 million?
    Mr. Moore. 193 million.
    The Chairman. Yes. Okay. The Dixie Fire burned a million 
acres, and devoured one of, well, two of my towns, really and 
core parts of others. So 20,000 acres over several years--how 
do you think we are ever going to catch up on that? I mean, we 
give you the tools, and we want you to spend time using these 
tools to the greatest extent possible, but instead--cross-
laminated timber is something I have seen in existence. Just 
about every church I have been into, the--they are made out of 
laminated timber in the sanctuary. So what is new in the area 
of laminated timber that we need the Forest Service to innovate 
new products, instead of being out on the ground, doing this 
basic work, and not encouraging the private-sector, as Mr. 
Duarte was talking about?
    I have information here that says we have six uses of the 
authority in that categorical exclusion. You say we are now up 
to eight, and we have 20 in the works, so that would probably 
be a total of 40,000 acres by the time all is said and done, 
right?
    Mr. Moore. I don't know yet.
    The Chairman. Yes. Okay. Sir--and I am really trying--I 
respect you, and the position you are in, and how hard it is 
with--you are inviting--fighting environmental lawsuits all the 
time, and you say you need more resources, but when we are 
talking about the inability, it seems, to increase pace and 
scale, the thing--the one thing we need most desperately, it 
just--it just--starts to fall on more and more deaf ears around 
here, you know what I am saying? It hurts us in our districts. 
It hurts us to keep feeling this frustration that the 
government is not going to get the job done for us.
    Mr. Duarte was talking about--we need much more private-
sector work. We need your commitment from your department that, 
if we build a mill for $200 million, that they are going to 
have a 30 year supply, that the Cottonwood case is not going to 
come in and say we have to revisit a species here that decided 
to show up, or decided to be recategorized. We need a 
commitment to that, because there is no way in the world that 
we could ever fund you enough at the pace and scale with which 
the Department moves to get anything done in a way that is 
going to be meaningful.
    So I will pause there. Does my Ranking Member have a 
further question?
    Ms. Salinas. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, as we have 
talked about, climate change is having a real impact on water 
supply of agricultural communities across the nation, and 
certainly in the Pacific Northwest, in my region. Healthier 
watersheds provide more water for downstream users. Chief 
Moore, can you provide insight into the watershed condition 
framework implementation?
    Mr. Moore. Yes. So there are a lot of different ways of 
looking at that, Congresswoman, and right now we are focused on 
firesheds, to look at getting at the fire issue. And, of 
course, they can sit within a watershed. One of our biggest 
challenges has been to report on outputs on an acre. For 
instance, we go into a watershed, and we treat so many acres of 
that watershed to move it from one condition class to the next 
condition class. And I don't know if it is time for us to 
consider outcome-based reporting, rather than output-based 
reporting. Looking at the outcome-based reporting would allow 
us to take a number of different actions within a watershed, or 
even within a fireshed, to improve the condition of that 
fireshed or watershed.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. And then can you provide an example 
of a priority watershed where desired outcomes have been 
achieved?
    Mr. Moore. Yes. I think if you look at a municipal 
watershed, as an example--and we have been putting some of our 
GNA authority and work in those municipal watersheds, because 
they serve the communities in the area there, so that would be 
a priority watershed, as an example.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. So, as you know, economic pressure, 
such as that from suburban development, put forestland owners 
under pressure to sell their land. Can you speak to how 
effective the Forest Legacy Program is in helping landowners to 
preserve ownership through the use of easements?
    Mr. Moore. Yes. I think that has been one of the real 
successful program areas. And, we have seen on occasion where, 
depending on the location across the country, the original 
owner of the land--it is getting to the point that they can't 
farm or ranch, and they look at turning it over to their 
offspring, their kids. The kids are not interested in that 
work, and so now it is not a working farm, or a working ranch, 
but you still have to pay taxes on it. And so what we are 
finding is, to keep land open, we are--the Legacy Program is 
one of those great successes over the years, would allow the 
owner to have some income, but also to keep the land--in 
exchange for keeping the land open.
    Ms. Salinas. And, to follow up, is the program effective in 
reducing fragmentation of forest lands?
    Mr. Moore. Yes. I think it is one of our successes.
    Ms. Salinas. Great. And are there any adjustments that 
should be made to make these programs easier for users?
    Mr. Moore. So I would like to think about that, because I 
have heard some discussion from some of the staffs, 
Congresswoman, and get back with you on that.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. No further questions. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Chief Moore, when we are talking 
about the situation with old growth, and protection of that, we 
had a very positive, productive discussion in Natural Resources 
the other day on what Speaker McCarthy brought forward, with 
the protecting of the giant sequoias in California. And--but 
also the acknowledgement that lack of management near them has 
endangered them, and indeed we lost some areas of that in the 
past in yet another fire wave through the area. So we have to 
do better it--just on that.
    But that said, as the agency contemplates more work on old 
growth and mature forests, as we are calling them, is the 
agency now going to have to split between direct fire 
suppression of--maybe around communities, buoys, or is it going 
to shift more resources to protect old growth?
    Mr. Moore. Well, what I am finding is that there has been 
an explosion of homes being built into the wildland-urban 
interface, so that question is becoming fuzzier. Protecting the 
giant sequoias, as an example, there is a lot of work there, 
and those are iconic trees that are thousands of years old. So 
looking at some of the emergency authorities we have to protect 
those trees has been really great for us, as a country, not 
just an agency.
    And I will give you an example. The work that we have done 
out there to date--we have about 7,000 piles of material out 
there. We have burned probably 2,000--little over 2,000 piles 
of material out there, and we are on schedule to burn the other 
5,000 or so piles. The reason I have talked so much about wood 
innovation is because if we had wood innovation refined, rather 
than burning 7,000 piles of slash from creating health and 
resiliency in our forests, we could create products and jobs 
out of that material.
    The Chairman. Well, sir, we are importing lumber, so I 
don't know if we have a lack of market for wood products in the 
country, and it is--we have plenty of regulations to prevent 
the harvest, and plenty of regulations to make it difficult to 
truck them, and have trucks that are available, or even home 
building, I suppose.
    So let us shift over a little more on--UC Berkeley in 
California, they actually have a productive division in their 
Forest Department that they have research that shows that 
southern Cal, for example, southern California, has lost half 
of its mature forests to fire, insect, and disease in just the 
last 10 years. So the authors at UC Berkeley concluded that 
there is a hands-off approach, which is increasingly failing to 
preserve mature forests, and that, in quotes again, 
``management actions should be taken, despite uncertainties, if 
cost of inaction is high.'' Uncertainties probably meaning the 
usual litany of lawsuits, what is it going to do to the species 
here and there, what have you.
    So when we are talking about wilderness areas, and 
grasslands, and monuments that have a hands-off, stay out 
approach, wouldn't the Berkeley work suggest that, instead of 
this off-limit approach, that they should be aggressively 
managed, or at least just catch up, whether we are talking the 
giant sequoias, or any other highly valued old growth or mature 
land?
    Mr. Moore. Congressman, I think we all agree that the 
National Forests need more management conducted on them, so 
that is not debatable. That is something that we all agree on. 
What we are trying to decide is how do we utilize the type of 
material that we have out there in removing that vegetation.
    The Chairman. I am sorry, I missed the last part.
    Mr. Moore. Yes. No problem. I said we all agree that we 
need to do more work out there. I said the discussion has 
really been over how to utilize the type of material that we 
are removing off the landscape.
    The Chairman. Yes. I think there is a market for it; but, 
we are talking a few dollars for that versus a lot more dollars 
to do the other part. So--well, I am going to conclude my line 
of questioning, as I have another committee beckoning as well, 
Ranking Member, do you have any closing thoughts before we 
close out?
    Ms. Salinas. Just quickly, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I want 
to thank Chief Moore for providing us your valuable insight 
into the work, the challenges, obviously the tensions and 
opportunities across our forestry programs, and your thoughts 
on really how to improve some of these programs. The 
information and insight that you have shared with us today will 
enable us to develop policies that will help improve programs 
to deliver results for forest health, rural economies, and help 
us fight climate change. And I do think it is a balance and a 
tension that we are facing right now; but, we have to address 
these associated fire risks, disease, and insect infestation. I 
think you have given us a lot to think about, so thank you for 
your time today.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member, and the rest of 
our Committee Members that could join us and be part for a 
portion, or a good part of the hearing today. It is much 
appreciated. Extremely important topic, obviously. And, Chief 
Moore, I appreciate, again, you spending time with us over here 
on the Hill, and working with us, but I just have to say that 
we need more fire in the belly, sir. We need more passion about 
this, because we can't keep doing the bureaucratic shuffle on 
this and think we are going to have our western lands somehow 
look anything like they are intended to or used to. And I am 
just disappointed.
    So, sir, let us keep finding ways, and aggressively move at 
the pace and scale that is going to prevent my district, and 
others like it, from continuing to lose more towns, lose more 
habitat, and have our lakes filled with ash, and mud, and such. 
So, with that, we will conclude today's hearing. Thank you all.
    [Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
  Submitted Letter by Hon. Gabe Vasquez, a Representative in Congress 
                            from New Mexico
March 1, 2023

  Randy Moore,
  Chief,
  U.S. Forest Service,
  Washington, D.C.

    Dear Chief Moore,

    We write to inquire about the preventative measures the United 
States Forest Service (USFS) is undertaking for the controlled burns 
planned for our National Forests. It is imperative that our 
constituents and our lands are protected from the next wildfire 
disaster because our constituents cannot afford to have another 
unprepared wildfire response.
    Controlled burns are fires set intentionally for the purpose of 
reducing potentially hazardous fuels, helping endangered species 
recover, returning nutrients to the soil, and generally mitigating 
wildfire risk in the future. Fires can be set over large tracts of land 
or in pile burns, debris and branches that are stacked and burned after 
they dry out. These actions can be particularly helpful in preserving 
our forests under the correct conditions but can be disastrous if those 
conditions are not met.
    Last summer, the Forest Service admitted to causing two wildfires 
that would eventually merge into the largest fire in New Mexico's 
history, burning nearly 350,000 acres of land and destroying over 900 
buildings. The fire at Calf Canyon was the result of a prescribed pile 
burn that later reignited and merged with the Hermit's Peak fire, an 
approved prescribed fire with a burn plan outlined by USFS. A disaster 
of this proportion cannot happen again.
    We understand that the effects of climate change heighten the 
impact of wildfires on forests across the country, and that most 
prescribed burns are completed without issue. To help restore trust in 
preventative measures and ensure the safety of our constituents, we 
request answers to the following:

   How are prescribed burn notices to local governments and 
        adjacent landowners being communicated to ensure our 
        constituents receive timely notices of fires?

   Has protocol been modified regarding burn piles to prevent 
        smoldering fires from reigniting?

   What measures is your agency taking to ensure fires remain 
        contained?

    We look forward to your response on this matter and ensuring New 
Mexicans are safe and prepared for the next wildfire.
            Sincerely,
            
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
            

 
 
 
Hon. Gabe Vasquez,                   Hon. Teresa Leger Fernandez,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                 ______
                                 
  Supplementary Material Submitted by Randy Moore, Chief, U.S. Forest 
                Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Insert 1
          Mr. Thompson. So, if I may, because I am running out of time 
        here, if you wouldn't mind following up in writing, in terms of 
        the whole question about how well we are doing towards that 
        sustainable growth rate as an overall system, and then my 
        follow-up question would be--I know that you all are doing 
        great things, I follow closely our Forest Service lab 
        professionals, they do a great job. The question I have, 
        though, is it seems like we have been in a whole talking 
        pattern about that, and that is only going to work when we can 
        get it to commercialization. When we get that--all the great 
        things you talked about, and probably more that we can talk 
        about in the future--when we get that to commercialization, 
        then we actually have a vehicle to improve forest health.

    The highest priority for the agency is addressing the wildfire 
crisis. In addition to addressing the wildfire crisis, building 
resilient forests in the face of climate change is also a high 
priority. A robust timber industry is critical to meeting on-the-ground 
outcomes, as it relates to the thinning of densely vegetated forests in 
fire-prone landscapes. The Forest Service continues to work diligently 
to increase the level of timber volume sold by prioritizing staff and 
other resources, striving for efficiency gains, and updating our NEPA 
compliance guidance and other practices. Despite the much-needed 
investments made through both the IIJA and IRA, we are still seeing 
workforce capacity as one of our major issues. We hope that in the 
coming months, we can begin to increase our workforce capacity in the 
areas affecting our forest management program, giving us an opportunity 
to not only maintain our timber sales accomplishments but also increase 
them.
    The Forest Service is uniquely suited, and works actively, to not 
only innovate through research and development, but also to facilitate 
technology transfer to industries for commercial application that 
generates economic development and improves forest health through 
utilization of small-diameter material from hazardous fuels and forest 
health projects. As one example, through implementation of farm bill 
authority, our Forest Products Lab partners with the wood products 
industry, conservation organizations and universities to analyze the 
safety of tall wood building materials and increase the use of mass 
timber in buildings. The Forest Products Lab developed analyses 
covering all the stages of the life cycle of wood-based products and 
uses. Over the last 3 years, the Lab supported the commercialization 
and transfer of research technology through the Wood Products Council. 
The Lab also provided technical and financial support to the National 
Hazard Engineering Research Infrastructure (NHERI) TallWood project to 
support the use of mass timber in multi-story structures located in 
high seismic zones. The primary contractor for the world's tallest 
timber hybrid building, Ascent, located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 
contacted the Lab to research and develop an extended, 3 hour, char 
rate model. This study led to the acceptance by building officials and 
the 2021 International Building Code that now allows mass timber 
building up to 18 stories. The Forest Products Lab also supports 
implementation of the Wood Innovations Act through agreements with 
universities to conduct research on innovative wood products for 
building construction. The Forest Products Lab currently has 78 
agreements with 36 Universities and organizations.
    The farm bill has catalyzed U.S. growth in mass timber construction 
with over 1,600 buildings built, under construction, or in design, and 
the rate is accelerating each year. Utilizing Section 8643 of the 2018 
Farm Bill, the agency's Wood Innovations Grants Program stimulates and 
expands wood products and wood energy markets. National focus areas 
include mass timber, renewable wood energy, and technological 
development that supports fuel reduction and sustainable forest 
management. Section 8643 of the 2018 Farm Bill allows the Forest 
Service to make grants to individuals or public or private entities or 
a state, local or Tribal government for the purpose of advancing the 
use of innovative wood products, reducing the use of fossil fuels, and 
expanding the use of forest residues through conversion of facilities 
to wood energy. Wood innovation projects are resulting in new and 
expanded markets for wood products and wood energy including mass 
timber construction, engineered wood products, biochar and combined 
heat and power energy projects. With 11 new mass timber panel plants 
now in the United States, the Forest Service is working with partners 
to triple the number of buildings built every year from mass timber. 
Our partnership and funding for WoodWorks has been crucial in achieving 
these results.
Insert 2
          Mr. Vasquez. . . .
          Now we are facing the next phase of this tragedy, which is 
        the compensation from FEMA. And investigation from ProPublica 
        and Source New Mexico found that of the 140 households eligible 
        for FEMA housing, only 13 had been awarded. That is after 400 
        days of this fire. Chief, do you agree that this is an 
        unacceptable result following a catastrophic fire caused by the 
        Federal Government?

    I want to acknowledge the extraordinary impacts these events have 
had on the people and communities in New Mexico and apologize that we 
are very sorry for what happened with Hermit's Peak. We know that it 
had tragic impacts on that community, the people's lives and 
livelihoods, including some of our employees who live in these 
communities. We have allocated significant post-fire and disaster 
funding to this area. We are also working with the community and 
landowners to help them access other USDA programs. A long-term 
recovery plan has only been possible because of the critical leadership 
and partnerships with state, local and Federal agencies, local 
community groups, and academic institutions in coordinated lines of 
effort.
Insert 3
          Mr. Moore. Well, I respond by saying I understand the 
        frustration in how different agencies within the Federal 
        Government operate. I would also ask you to be understanding of 
        I don't know what FEMA's rules are, since I don't work for 
        them, and that is not a put-off. I simply don't know what 
        FEMA's rules are. But I will follow up and provide you with a 
        response. And in terms of your letter that you sent in March, I 
        will look that up and make sure we are responsive to you.

    The agency is grateful for the resources provided by the Hermit's 
Peak Calf Canyon Fire Assistance Act and funding FEMA for speedy 
payment of claims to affected members of the community. The impacts on 
community members go beyond what money can replace. Still, the hope is 
the expedited claims process will help community members recover, 
restore, and rebuild. The Forest Service is working with the State of 
New Mexico and FEMA as part of the long-term recovery plan, addressing 
recovery across all lands affected by FY22 fires. The Plan is organized 
under seven ``Lines of Effort'' (LOEs), which include: community 
outreach, economic recovery, housing recovery, health, and social 
services, historical/cultural resources, drinking water, and watershed 
mitigation. The LOE structure is defined based on ``key recovery 
priorities'' for the State of New Mexico's recovery strategy.

   The multi-agency coordination effort recognizes long-term 
        needs related to watershed restoration, infrastructure 
        protection, and other recovery efforts and that long-term 
        efforts will continue to be coordinated by agencies within 
        their authority and funding.

   The Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) program funded 
        $7.3 million for emergency stabilization in the Hermit's Peak/
        Calf Canyon Fire burned area. The BAER treatments included 
        aerial mulching on 3,000 acres, storm-proofing and repairing 
        roads, trail work, and installing road closure and hazard 
        warning signs. The Forest Service completed this work last 
        summer.

   The agency allocated over $10.8 million in Burned Area 
        Rehabilitation (BAR) funds for additional road, trail, and 
        facility repair, aerial seeding, and allotment fence repair. 
        This work is currently underway with multiple contracts and 
        agreements.

   In addition, the Region received over $50 million in 
        Disaster Supplemental funds specifically for work on the 
        Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon burned area. The Forest Service is 
        developing long-term restoration priorities, and projects with 
        the state and FEMA, and our USDA partners. The funding and 
        long-term work are focused on the following:

     Firewood distribution,

     Rangeland restoration, including repairing fences,

     Road and bridge reconstruction and replacement,

     Acequia and ditch repair,

     Hazard tree removal along roadways for safety,

     Forest restoration through salvage and reforestation,

     Water diversion structures and channel repair, and

     Recreation infrastructure repair.

   For the past year, the Forest Service and USDA, including 
        NRCS, FSA, and Rural Development, have been actively 
        participating in firewood distribution, allotment assessments, 
        fence replacements, roadside hazard tree removal, timber and 
        agricultural industry recovery, watershed stabilization, and 
        Acequia and infrastructure repair.

   The Forest Service is currently partnering with the NRCS 
        through a newly signed MOU between the two agencies that allows 
        us to better work with the State of New Mexico for a broad-
        scale effort to address headwaters stabilization needs for 
        National Forest System lands and downstream private lands to 
        mitigate as much as possible impacts from flooding.

    The Forest Service is partnering with the State of New Mexico to 
support post wildfire recovery and reforestation by investing in the 
New Mexico Reforestation Center through New Mexico State University. 
The Forest Service is investing in the Center using Fiscal Year 2023 
Disaster Supplemental Funds via State, Private and Tribal Forestry 
(SPTF) to support a $10 million grant for the construction of the 
Center and a $160,000 of FY23 IIJA funding to support a nursery grant 
to the state.
Insert 4
          The Chairman. No, but I guess my question is, is that really 
        your role, innovating new products, or is that something that 
        is going to come from the big thinkers you have all across the 
        country that are constantly creating new products? So I will 
        leave that question aside here. So if we have money for that, 
        how much did you spend on at least two occasions of shooting 
        cattle in New Mexico?
          Mr. Moore. I can provide you----
          The Chairman. Eradicating cattle?
          Mr. Moore. I can provide you with the budget that we set 
        aside for that.

    The total spent by the Forest Service on the previous two 
operations was $125,896.19.
                                 ______
                                 
                          Submitted Questions
Response from Randy Moore, Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department 
        of Agriculture
Questions Submitted by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in 
        Congress from Pennsylvania
    Question 1. Chief, the Confronting the Wildfire Crisis Strategy 
that the Forest Service is implementing calls for treating 20 million 
acres of National Forest System lands and another 30 million acres of 
private, state, and Tribal land. Can you tell me how you have been 
working with partners and selecting projects?
    Answer. The agency has invested $1.2 billion on 21 landscapes using 
a combination of funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act (IIJA) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funding in FY23. Using a 
mix of those funds, with Joint Chiefs, Collaborative Forest Landscape 
Restoration and other regular appropriations on those landscapes, the 
Forest Service has treated a total of 694,000 acres in FY22 and FY23 as 
of August 21, 2023.
    Input and thoughts from valued stakeholders have been incorporated 
into the Wildfire Crisis Strategy (WCS) since its inception. With the 
assistance of the National Forest Foundation and the Intertribal Timber 
Council, the agency hosted 11 roundtables across the country to 
determine successes, challenges, and policy needs associated with the 
implementation of the WCS. Collaborating with partners early and often 
in the planning and prioritization under the WCS was one of the more 
frequent recommendations--including incorporation of shared-data, 
leveraging capacity, aligning priorities, and effective storytelling.
    Each of the WCS landscapes were chosen based on a variety of 
criteria, collaborative planning, and public support underpinning 
proposal foundations. Across the 21 WCS Landscapes, Forests and Regions 
are working with over 280 unique partner organizations including state 
agencies, Tribal Nations, NGOs, finance partners, and industry 
partners. Twenty-one of these are new partnerships developed in 
relation the WCS.
    The agency supports implementation of work on the 30 million acres 
through grants to states, Tribes and other partners. Utilizing programs 
such as State Fire Assistance (Capacity), the Community Wildfire 
Defense Grant Program, Landscape Scale Restoration, and Cross-Boundary 
Hazardous Fuels funding we are able to treat, through partnership, non-
NFS lands in close coordination with work on Federal lands.

    Question 1a. How long, on average, does it take for a project to 
get through the approval process on National Forest System land? How 
long on private, state, or Tribal land?
    Answer. For NFS lands, on average, the completion time from scoping 
to decision for a categorical exclusion addressing hazardous fuels 
management is 230 days. The average completion time for the Fuel Break 
CE on NFS lands (provided in the IIJA) is 130 days. On average, the 
completion time from scoping to decision for an environmental 
assessment addressing hazardous fuels management on NFS lands is 860 
days.\1\ After environmental compliance is complete, delays may occur 
prior to implementation (for example due to waiting for an operable 
field season or the contracting process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The data was collected from the Forest Service's Planning, 
Administrative Review, and Litigation System (PALS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Project planning and approval on Tribal, private, and state lands 
vary, and is dependent on the specific scope of work, funding source as 
well as compliance with local, state and/or Tribal laws and policies. 
We do not track the length of time to approve projects on private, 
state, or Tribal land.

    Question 2. Chief, I have long believed in locally-led conservation 
and restoration and believe this readily applies to the wildfire crisis 
we are facing. Is the Forest Service working with landowners who have 
extensive local knowledge and experience on fire suppression? If so, 
what improvements can we expect to see with the Forest Service's fire 
suppression efforts this year?
    Answer. Addressing the wildfire crisis will require a cross 
boundary approach to reduce hazardous fuels across all lands. The 
Forest Service is working with other Federal and state agencies, 
partners, and private landowners to achieve this work. The response to 
the wildfire crisis is focused on a proactive approach to fuels 
management.
    Fire suppression will continue to be an important component of fire 
management. Eighty-nine percent of wildfires are human caused. All 
human-caused fires are suppressed, as well as any fire that threaten 
life or property. As such, the Forest Service fire prevention program 
is still integral to the suppression response, where prevention 
officers patrol high use areas to educate the public and to seek areas 
where escaped campfires or other human-caused wildfires, such as 
equipment and vehicles, are a source of fire ignitions.
    When there is a high wildfire risk, prevention teams are deployed 
to have more presence, education, and patrol in high use areas of a 
forest. Additionally, the Forest Service can pre-position firefighting 
resources during periods of high fire danger in an effort to suppress 
wildfires during initial attack. The Forest Service will continue to 
work with local partners and communities to inform where fire danger 
from human-caused starts are a concern and where hazardous fuel 
treatments should be placed to best modify the fire behavior across all 
lands.

    Question 3. The IIJA provided the Forest Service with a new 
categorical exclusion (CE) for fuel breaks up to 3,000 acres and 
emergency authorities to expedite projects in response to natural 
disasters. It's been over a year and a half since this law was passed, 
but to my knowledge the Forest Service has only used the CE 31 times 
during that period and on very limited acreage. Furthermore, we are 
unaware of any projects using the emergency authority.
    How often has the Forest Service used this CE and what is the total 
number of acres treated? Please provide this Committee with project-
specific data (Region, forest, location, and acres treated or planned). 
Why hasn't the Forest Service used this fuel break CE more often?
    Answer. The agency has 54 active projects using the Fuel Breaks CE 
category (35 projects in environmental compliance and 19 projects in 
implementation). As of October 3, 2023, there are a total of 40,237 
acres treated and there is a total proposed treatment of 85,348 acres 
using this CE.

    Question 3b. How often has the Forest Service used the emergency 
authority and what is the total number of acres treated? Please provide 
this Committee with project-specific data (Region, forest, location, 
and acres treated or planned). Why hasn't the Forest Service used this 
emergency authority more often?
    Answer. In December 2022, USDA announced that Secretary Vilsack had 
authorized the Forest Service to use the new emergency authority from 
the IIJA across 250 high-risk firesheds in the western United States as 
well as several specific post-fire recovery areas. Combined with 
strategic implementation of existing authorities, this will enable us 
to move more quickly to apply targeted treatment to the high-risk 
firesheds identified in our Wildfire Crisis Strategy.
    In the first year of implementation, the agency focused on scaling 
up with shovel-ready projects to get started on this important work. In 
the second year, the agency began building on this important work 
through historic investments through IIJA and IRA.
    As of August 16, 2023, nine projects have been approved by Chief 
Moore to use the new emergency authority. These projects are in the 
planning phase and include 402,340 acres of proposed treatment in 
National Forests in Arizona, California, Montana, New Mexico, and South 
Dakota. At least three other projects are pending approval in the 
Washington Office with another 27 projects pending Regional Office 
approvals. Training webinars covering procedures and requirements for 
using this authority are also in development.

    Question 4. Chief, collaborative forest restoration projects have 
been a cornerstone of how the agency has accomplished some of the much 
needed management across National Forest System lands. In the 2018 Farm 
Bill, we reauthorized the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 
Program (CFLRP) through 2023 and the IIJA authorized an additional 
funding for the program. Can you provide this Committee with data on 
the number acres treated and timber volume sold annually by each CFLRP 
project from 2018-2023?
    Answer. Between 2018 and 2022, the Collaborative Forest Landscape 
Restoration Program (CFLRP) treated a total of 1.7 million acres for 
hazardous fuel reduction and sold 2.8 million cubic feet (33.6 million 
board-feet) of timber. Data from 2023 is not yet available.
    CFLRP projects implement a wide range of projects that aren't 
reflected in hazardous fuels acres and timber volume. In the last 5 
years, 3.5 million acres of terrestrial habitat were improved, 500 
miles of stream habitat were enhanced, and 72,000 acres were treated 
for invasive species. In that same time frame, the program created 
21,435 jobs and generated over $1 billion in labor income. In 2022, we 
found that on average 70% of the CFLRP funding stays local to the 
project area. The program leveraged $55 million dollars of partner 
dollars between 2018 and 2022 and added over 100 new partners to our 
collaborative groups.
    The table below includes the hazardous fuels acres treated and 
timber volume sold for the CFLRP projects from 2018 through 2022. The 
CFLRP projects vary widely in size, ecosystem, and socioeconomic 
context, and accomplishments can't be compared across projects.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2018         2019         2020         2021        2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFLRP Project Name         State          CFLRP
                                        funding
                                          years    Acres treated to reduce hazardous fuels (top)  Timber Volume
                                                                     Sold, ccf (bottom, bold)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accelerating Longleaf         FL      2010-2019      46,036       27,728           --           --          --
 Pine Restoration in
 Northeast Flor-
  ida                                                 7,898       26,126           --           --          --
Amador-Calaveras              CA      2012-2021       4,008       16,666        6,872        6,563          --
 Consensus Group
 Cornerstone Project
                                                     11,729       37,065       23,949       37,401          --
Burney-Hat Creek              CA      2012-2021       4,292        2,729        3,378        3,987          --
 Basin
                                                     26,591        2,285       17,198          533          --
Colorado Front Range          CO      2010-2019       6,745        4,368           --           --          --
                                                      5,217        4,508           --           --          --
Deschutes                     OR     2010-2019,      10,953        4,138           --       12,764       9,552
 Collaborative Forest                 2021-2025      19,092        1,627           --       42,195      30,651
 Project
Dinkey Landscape              CA     2010-2019,       7,122          602           --            0         790
 Restoration Project                  2021-2028      18,447            0           --        3,392       5,550
Four Forest                   AZ      2010-2019     129,168      115,142           --           --          --
 Restoration
 Initiative
                                                    180,863      250,473           --           --          --
Grandfather                   NC      2012-2021       5,467          100        1,314           --       5,232
 Restoration Project
                                                      3,585          150           53           --
Kootenai Valley               ID      2012-2021       3,209        5,974        1,824        2,507       1,825
 Resource Initiative
                                                     53,116       50,737       20,530       49,704      28,227
Lakeview Stewardship          OR      2012-2031      20,280       14,761        8,227       23,633      19,086
                                                     21,267       26,166        6,520          845
Longleaf Pine                 MS     2012-2021,      63,960       14,870       46,844       38,500          --
 Ecosystem
 Restoration and
 Hazardous Fuels
  Reduction                           2023-2028      40,182       23,637          376       21,572          --
Missouri Pine-Oak             MO      2012-2026      22,475       14,813       13,916       13,156      24,586
 Woodlands
 Restoration Project
                                                     35,500       32,473       16,003       20,125      33,464
North Central                 WA      2022-2031          --           --           --           --       7,367
 Washington
                                                         --           --           --           --
North Yuba Forest             CA      2022-2031          --           --           --           --
 Partnership
                                                         --           --           --           --      49,670
Northeast Washington          WA      2012-2030       9,702        9,245        5,875        6,378      14,928
 Forest Vision 2020
                                                    111,722       21,541       35,878       62,163       4,577
Northern Blues                OR      2021-2030          --           --           --       37,583      36,627
                                                         --           --           --       42,066      74,821
Ozark Highlands          AR & OK      2012-2021      33,176       42,963       28,677       41,775          --
 Ecosystem                                           31,542       43,193       17,327       27,824          --
 Restoration
Pisgah Restoration       NC & TN      2023-2032          --           --           --           --          --
 Initiative                                              --           --           --           --          --
Rio Chama                CO & NM      2022-2031          --           --           --           --      11,096
                                                         --           --           --           --      38,288
Rogue Basin                   OR      2022-2031          --           --           --           --       6,187
                                                         --           --           --           --      21,605
Selway-Middle Fork            ID      2010-2019          67           39           --           --          --
 Clearwater
                                                      7,381            0           --           --          --
Shortleaf Bluestem       AR & OK      2012-2027      63,533       30,727       41,296       97,212      71,920
 Community                                           71,802       59,589       93,502       33,527      26,660
Southern Blues                OR      2012-2031      41,597       34,091       35,278       26,980      41,745
 Restoration
 Coalition
                                                    103,224      110,042      129,415       11,585      21,602
Southwest Colorado            CO      2022-2031          --           --           --           --      12,525
 Restoration
 Initiative
                                                         --           --           --           --      51,722
Southwest Jemez               NM      2010-2019       5,877        2,812           --           --          --
 Mountains
                                                     14,366        3,780           --           --          --
Southwestern Crown of         MT      2010-2019       2,551        4,226           --           --          --
 the Continent
                                                     13,723       28,360           --           --          --
Tapash                        WA      2010-2019       1,926        2,961           --           --          --
                                                      5,290          486           --           --          --
Uncompahgre Plateau           CO      2010-2019       4,442       21,280           --           --          --
                                                      8,652        2,170           --           --          --
Weiser-Little Salmon          ID      2012-2021      22,740       20,276       12,391       11,509          --
 Headwaters
                                                      9,656       18,821       43,970       50,866          --
Western Klamath               CA      2022-2031          --           --           --           --       2,118
 Restoration
 Partnership
                                                         --           --           --           --       8,720
Zuni Mountain                 NM      2012-2031       1,872        3,830        1,383        3,564          70
                                                     14,116        9,116        5,286       15,904       8,105
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers in italics indicate reported accomplishments that were not captured in the database of record. Annual
  reports with comprehensive project accomplishments can be found on the CFLRP website: https://www.fs.usda.gov/
  restoration/CFLRP/results.shtml.


    Question 5. Chief, can you provide this Committee with the amount 
of standing sawtimber on unreserved National Forest System lands in the 
lower 48, as identified by the Forest Inventory and Analysis program 
datasets? How much standing sawtimber is located on lands designated as 
``insect and disease treatment areas'' under the Healthy Forests 
Restoration Act? Do you know how much standing sawtimber is located on 
lands designated as ``priority landscapes'' in the Forest Service's 10 
year Wildfire Strategy?
    Answer. The numbers below are estimates from a series of analyses 
that broadly address the inquiries above and were compiled using 
existing data and maps to produce estimates of: sawtimber volume on 
non-reserved National Forest System (NFS) lands; sawtimber volume on 
non-reserved NFS lands within designated insect and disease areas under 
sections 602 and 603 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act; and 
sawtimber volume on non-reserved NFS land within the twenty-one 
Wildfire Crisis Strategy priority landscapes.
    For the purposes of this question, Reserved lands are defined as 
National Forest System lands that are permanently prohibited from being 
managed to produce wood products through statute or agency mandate, 
such that the prohibition cannot be changed through a decision by the 
land manager. Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Areas are examples of 
reserved lands found within National Forest System administrative 
boundaries. However, it is important to understand that standing 
sawtimber on non-reserved land is not an indicator of the amount of 
sawtimber available or accessible for harvest. A variety of factors 
influence availability and accessibility, including but not limited to:

   Land Management Plans and the Management Areas, goals, 
        standards, and guidelines defined within them can restrict the 
        availability of material through, for example designations of 
        suitable/unsuitable areas for timber harvest.

   Market factors determine what is economically accessible.

   Areas may be unsuitable due to site-specific conditions such 
        as steep slopes, erosive soils, being too wet, etc.

   Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat 
        designations can restrict miles of open or closed roads, 
        impacting accessibility of an area.

    Please be aware that these and other factors affect the 
availability of standing sawtimber volume for utilization.

    Non-reserved National Forest Service land--sawtimber volume:

    Estimates of non-reserved sawtimber volume on Non-reserved National 
Forest Service land and were generated using Forest Inventory and 
Analysis (FIA) plot data. These estimates have a plus/minus one percent 
error.

 
 Non-reserved National Forest Service land Sawtimber volume
                          (million)                            estimate
 
Cubic-foot..................................................     211,882
Board-foot..................................................   1,312,238
 

    Sawtimber volume (non-reserved National Forest System land) within 
insect and disease areas designated under sections 602 and 603 of the 
Healthy Forests Restoration Act:

    Estimates of sawtimber volume within insect and disease areas 
designated under sections 602 and 603 of the Healthy Forests 
Restoration Act (HFRA) were generated using FIA plots located within 
HFRA areas designated on a spatial layer from the Forest Service 
Enterprise Data Warehouse.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://apps.fs.usda.gov/arcx/rest/services/EDW/
EDW_HealthyForestRestorationAct_01/MapServer/0

 
   Sawtimber volume on non-reserved NFS land within areas
 designated under sections 602 and 603 of the HFRA (million)   estimate
 
Cubic-foot..................................................     108,335
 

    Sawtimber volume within designated Wildfire Crisis Strategy 
landscapes:

    Estimates of sawtimber volume on non-reserved National Forest 
System land within the twenty-one Wildfire Crisis Strategy landscapes, 
based on FIA plot data. Note that not all land within any Wildfire 
Crisis Strategy landscape is entirely under National Forest System 
administration.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Sawtimber
                                                   volume
      Wildfire Crisis Strategy Landscape        (mil. cubic    % error
                                                    ft)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4FRI                                                  3,157           6%
Central Oregon                                        2,779           4%
Central Washington Initiative                         3,730           4%
Colorado Front Range                                  1,067           8%
Colville Northeast Washington Vision                  3,640           3%
Enchanted Circle                                        654          13%
Klamath River Basin                                  11,091           4%
Kootenai Complex                                      1,592           8%
Mount Hood Forest Health and Fire-Resilient           2,525           8%
 Communities
Nez Perce-Clearwater-Lower Salmon                     4,257           7%
North Yuba                                            1,696          13%
Pine Valley *                                           N/A          N/A
Plumas Community Protection                             620          21%
Prescott                                                 78          42%
San Carlos Apache Tribal Forest Protection               76          52%
Sierra and Elko Fronts                                  845          22%
Southern California Fireshed Risk Reduction             262          25%
 Strategy
Southwest Idaho                                       1,843           9%
Stanislaus                                              641          20%
Trinity Forest Health and Fire-Resilient Rural        2,806          10%
 Communities
Wasatch                                                 546          14%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Pine Valley landscape did not contain enough forested FIA plots to
  calculate an accurate estimate.


    Question 6. One of the things the Forest Service is required to do 
under the National Forest Management Act is to develop Forest Plans. 
Among other things, these plans must include the amount of timber that 
could be sustainably harvested from each NFS unit over the 10 year life 
of the Forest Plan. Can the Forest Service accurately tally the current 
Allowable Sale Quantity, or Permissible Timber Sale Quantity, found in 
current National Forest Plans, by National Forest, and aggregated both 
for each Forest Service Region and nationally? Please ensure that these 
ASQ's/PTSQ's factor in site specific or forest specific plan 
amendments, whether required by court order or created by the agency.
    Answer. We do not corporately track Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) 
or Permissible Timber Sale Quantity (PTSQ). These are not considered 
land allocations or designations. Rather, they provide a ceiling of how 
much volume may be cut from a particular unit according to each Land 
Management Plan. The previous Planning Rule used ASQ and PTSQ is what 
is calculated under the current 2012 Planning Rule. ASQ and PTSQ are 
located within the Land Management Plans for individual National 
Forests, and to obtain each is not feasible in the timeline required 
for this response. However, we are seeking this data from each unit and 
will update Committee staff with the results as soon as we are able to 
do so.

    Question 7. How much of the funding made available under the IIJA 
for the following provisions has been allocated to timber-producing 
projects:

   Sec. 40803(c)(11): $400 million for ``mechanical thinning 
        and timber harvesting in an ecologically appropriate manner,''

   Sec. 40803(c)(14): $250 million for the establishment of 
        ``control locations, . . . including installing fuel breaks . . 
        . with a focus on shaded fuel breaks when ecologically 
        appropriate,''

   Sec. 40802(c)(15): $100 million for hiring crews ``for the 
        removal of flammable vegetation on Federal land, and for using 
        materials from treatments to the extent practicable, to produce 
        biochar and other innovative wood products,''

   Sec. 408003 Authorities:

     $150 million for 10,000 acre ecological restoration 
            contracts, and

     $200 million for grants to states and Tribes to 
            implement ecosystem restoration.

    Answer. Investments made available through the IIJA have enabled 
the agency to perform critical work that protects communities while 
improving forest health and resiliency. A robust timber industry is 
critical to address the wildfire crisis and to maintain healthy forests 
across the nation in the face of climate change. The agency has 
developed a number of large-scale contracting and agreement tools with 
partners that will be critical to implementing this work.
    A total of $83,500,000 has been made available for timber producing 
projects from IIJA provision 40803(c)(11). A total of $27,300,000 has 
been made available for timber producing projects from IIJA provision 
40803(c)(14). A total of $5,500,000 has been made available for 
projects that include development and production of biochar and other 
products from IIJA provision 40803(c)(15).
    In FY 2024, the Forest Service intends to utilize $40,000,000 of 
the funds from IIJA provision 40804(b)(1), to restore the ecological 
health of more than 75,000 acres through a stewardship agreement with 
the Mule Deer Foundation. Under this agreement, landscape-scale, 
ecological health restoration will take place in National Forests and 
Grasslands across seven Forest Service regions (Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 
6, and 10). It is not possible to predict with certainty what 
proportion of the $40,000,000 will be used on timber producing projects 
but there will be some amount of forest products associated with the 
primary activities of habitat improvement, fuels reduction, and timber 
stand improvement.
    A total of $15,566,000 has been committed and executed as of the 
third quarter status report for Good Neighbor Authority timber 
producing projects from IIJA provision 40804(b)(2)(B) through 
agreements with state organizations. In FY23 the Forest Service 
allocated an additional $7 million from this provision to projects with 
Tribal Nations using Tribal Forest Protection Act (TFPA) or Good 
Neighbor Authority (GNA) authorities. The work with Tribal Nations is 
largely ecosystem restoration activity important to the Tribal Nations 
involved; projects to date have produced minimal commercial timber 
volume.

    Question 8. In 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that the Forest 
Service needed to reinitiate consultation with Fish and Wildlife 
Service following the 2009 designation of critical habitat for the 
Canada lynx. This decision established a new, ambiguous threshold for 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultations on completed programmatic 
actions. In 2018, Congress passed a partial fix, but ``new 
information'' claims under the Cottonwood ruling continue to have 
damaging implications that delay or prevent forest management 
altogether.
    It's my understanding that with the expiration of the 5 year 
partial Cottonwood fix this past March, over one hundred forest plans 
will have to go through ESA re-consultation, which will take years to 
complete and millions of dollars. The past four Chiefs of the Forest 
Service testified in support of finding a solution to reverse this 
decision. Will you commit to working with this Committee on a solution? 
In your view, how has the Cottonwood decision made western communities 
more vulnerable to wildfires? How many projects have already been 
delayed due to the Cottonwood case? How many more does the Forest 
Service expect will be delayed if the issue isn't permanently resolved 
by Congress?
    Answer. With the safe harbor provision in the 2018 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act expiring this past March, about eighty-seven (87) 
land management plans across the nation face varying degrees of legal 
uncertainty. As of August 2023, we have received the following Notices 
of Intent (NOIs) to sue related to Cottonwood:

   8 new information NOIs related to Forest Plans

   7 critical habitat NOIs related to Forest Plans

    Question 9. Chief, as you know, in the East we have significant 
challenges with invasive insect and plant species in our forests. In 
the Allegheny National Forest and across Appalachia, for example, the 
Forest Service has been trying to address glossy buckthorn for years. 
How is the Forest Service addressing invasive species? How have farm 
bill authorities helped the Forest Service work with adjacent private 
landowners who are also impacted by the spread of invasive species?
    Answer. The Allegheny National Forest (ANF) is working to develop a 
landscape level strategy to mitigate the spread of glossy buckthorn as 
part of the Allegheny Forest Health Collaborative. The ANF is currently 
carrying out its seventh year of a planned 10 year project to treat 
glossy and common buckthorn on the Forest. Effective treatment involves 
multiple reentry to impacted areas, with herbicide application, mowing, 
controlled burn, or other proven measures. The Allegheny Forest Health 
Collaborative (AFHC), with the ANF as a key partner, was formally 
established in 2017 to connect intermingled ownerships and interests.
    On a national scale, the Forest Service works across Federal, 
state, Tribal, and private lands to address invasive plants that damage 
forest and grassland ecosystems and create increased fire and human 
health risk. Our Forest Health Protection Invasive Plants Program 
provides approximately $2 million annually in financial assistance to 
and works in partnership with Federal agencies, State Departments of 
Forestry and Agriculture, and Tribes to provide technical assistance 
directly to landowners and support management actions on the ground. 
There are several farm bill authorities that have helped prevent and 
manage invasive species on private lands. These include the Landscape-
scale Restoration, Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, 
Good Neighbor Authority, and Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 
Amendments.

    Question 10. Chief, last month your agency released the Mature and 
Old-Growth Forest report that defines and inventories those forests on 
lands managed by the Forest Service. With over \1/2\ of the National 
Forest System already under some kind of protected status, this 
proposal is counter-productive, and it seems to me that it will do 
little more than prevent management on forests that are urgently in 
need of restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, and other fire 
prevention activities. In your view, how is this old growth protection 
proposal compatible with the 10 Year Strategy and the need to better 
manage tens of millions of acres of Federal lands?
    Answer. The agency's work on mature and old-growth forests (MOG) is 
completely compatible with the 10 Year Strategy. Our definitions for 
mature and old growth consider both biological and economic aspects 
using peer reviewed concepts and practices. Given the nature of the 
public discourse on conservation of mature and old-growth forests, it 
is essential to have a rigorous, peer-reviewed way to distinguish 
between areas that are considered economically mature and those that 
are beginning to reach an ecologically mature condition. Our inventory 
methods, including the definitions for mature and old-growth forest, 
were recently accepted for publication in Forest Ecology and 
Management, a highly respected scientific journal.
    Describing the transition from young to mature to old in a way that 
reflects forest type, biophysical setting, and productivity level of 
the site gives us a firm footing to make the case that active 
management is often needed, even when the objective is older forest 
conditions. It strengthens our position on whether older forests are 
veering away from sustainable conditions and need silvicultural 
manipulation to get back on track.
    Conducting the inventory and threat analysis is helping to quantify 
and add important context to two major biological factors that combine 
to create the forest health and wildfire challenges the Forest Service 
and Bureau of Land Management now face. The inventory and threat 
analysis are showing that fire exclusion resulted in densification of 
existing forests. The inventory also highlights how fire exclusion 
allowed forests to move into wetlands, meadows, woodlands, and other 
more open areas where they did not previously exist and likely will 
fall victim to fire, insects, or disease. In the east and south, it 
will also highlight the importance of addressing non-native invasive 
species, insects, and disease. The threat analysis will quantify the 
magnitude of these issues and inform the agency's evaluation of when 
these lands will benefit from treatment, or in some cases the complete 
removal or type conversion of forests, to address landscape scale 
forest health and fire related issues. This use of active management is 
a crucial part of fostering climate resilience in forests and 
communities.

    Question 10a. How many acres of mature and old growth did you find 
on those lands? Please provide this Committee with documentation of the 
overlap between the mature and old-growth forest identified by the 
inventory and the acres at highest risk of wildfire?
    Answer. The initial inventory identified more than 32 million acres 
of old-growth and around 80 million acres of mature forest across 200 
combinations of forest types, biophysical settings (e.g., slope aspect, 
elevation, etc.) and productivity levels. The inventory found that old-
growth forest represents 18%, and mature forest another 45% of all 
forested land managed by the Forest Service and BLM.
    We have been working on an answer to the question of how many acres 
of MOG coincide with areas at high risk for fire since we completed the 
inventory in April 2023. This is not a matter of a simple overlay of 
GIS layers (maps). Our inventory was based on a fireshed level (about 
250,000 acre areas) statistical estimate of the amount of mature or old 
growth in each fireshed with a standard error (measure of accuracy). We 
used Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) permanent sample plot data for 
this purpose. FIA is the most reliable source of quantitative data 
available. As a result, we have not yet identified specific MOG acres 
at high risk for fire, and we are hesitant to report these estimates at 
a very fine scale. Such maps require estimates of conditions that can 
easily be misinterpreted. We do not have a firm estimate of when we 
will complete this work, but we are happy to interact with Committee 
staff as we continue to improve this data.

    Question 11. While conducting this Mature and Old-Growth forest 
inventory and definition exercise, did the Forest Service identify a 
specific age (e.g., 80 years) at which all forest types are considered 
either ``old growth'' or ``mature''?
    Answer. We do not believe age alone is a reliable indicator of 
maturity and there is certainly no one age that would work for all 
forest types. The age when a stand begins to develop old-growth 
characteristics will vary depending on many factors even within a 
single forest type. We developed a framework that honors the 30 years 
of work the agency has done in collaboration with the public to develop 
regional old-growth definitions and include them in our forest plans. 
Our mature definitions are built on these well-established old-growth 
definitions. These definitions sometimes include age as a factor but 
never as sole factor. They depend more on structural characteristics 
that are easily recognized where age is relatively difficult to 
determine, especially in uneven age stands. In addition, different 
forest types develop at very different rates, so what we consider old 
for Ponderosa pine is very different than Southern pine.

    Question 12. Will wildfire risk reduction projects and fire 
suppression efforts be interrupted by the agency's work on old-growth 
and mature forests? Will the agency divert fire suppression resources 
to protect ``old-growth'' forests?
    Answer. Wildfire risk reduction as well as fire suppression efforts 
will not be interrupted by the agency's work on old-growth and mature 
forests. Old growth and mature forests are values that the agency 
considers when conducting fire management operations including 
hazardous fuels reduction work. As part of the response to an unplanned 
ignition, the agency will assess the values that will likely be 
impacted by the fire and determine where to deploy resources based on 
the highest probability of success. Because old growth and mature 
forest are part of the values considered, resources can be assigned to 
reduce fire impacts to these values.
    The agency's policy is for units to continue to follow existing 
direction and guidance with regard to management in and around mature 
and old growth. This is included in land management plans and in some 
cases regional direction or guidelines. Moving ahead, Executive Order 
14072 makes it clear that the President considers fire, insects, 
disease, and other stressors related to the changing climate as the 
major threats to mature and old-growth forests. This provides direction 
to the threat analysis required by the Executive Order. This is 
especially true as climate change accelerates. Again, the direction in 
the Executive Order does not change priorities for firefighting, and we 
will continue to prioritize fire suppression using existing guidance.

    Question 13. The agency's Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 
Climate Resilience mentions ``non-climate informed'' timber harvest and 
reforestation practices. What does this mean? Will climate resilience 
be prioritized over wildfire risk reduction activities?
    Answer. ``Non-climate informed'' harvest/practices refer to actions 
that were not sufficiently (or at all) informed by assessment of how 
climate-amplified forest stressors may interact with the action. 
Climate-informed management actions ideally include intentional 
adaptation measures to minimize risk to forest resilience, management 
objectives, and forest benefits arising from climate change.
    In early 2022, the Forest Service released the Wildfire Crisis 
Strategy, with the 10 year goal of treating an additional 20 million 
acres on the National Forest System and an additional 30 million acres 
on other lands for fuels and forest health. The strategy responds to 
the effects of climate change in degrading forest health and elevating 
wildfire risk, especially in the Western United States, by funding 
activities aligned with climate adaptation goals related to wildfires. 
The agency is integrating climate change considerations into landscape 
prioritization and treatment design and implementation. Treatments can 
help prepare landscapes for the impacts of other climate-intensified 
disturbances, including insect outbreaks. Prioritizing wildfire risk 
reduction directly supports both near- and long-term climate 
resilience.

    Question 14. The Forest Service Electric Vehicle Pilot Program is 
testing electric vehicle usage in three National Forests, including the 
Allegheny National Forest in my District. In the USFS budget, it looks 
as though a total of $7.6 million from hazardous fuel reduction and 
wildfire preparedness is getting the cut to support these EV efforts. I 
cannot discern how it's appropriate to use resources on EVs in National 
Forests--in the name of `climate change'--while communities in the West 
are burning, livelihoods are upended, and wildfire emissions are far 
greater than any EV fleet can reduce. What are your plans to offset 
this loss of resources for mitigating megafires and get at least $7.6 
million worth of hazardous fuel reduction and wildfire preparedness on 
the ground?
    Answer. The FY 2024 President's Budget proposed an increase of $7.6 
million in hazardous fuels and wildfire preparedness funding to 
accelerate the procurement of zero emission vehicles (ZEV) to replace 
some Forest Service light duty vehicles to support electrification 
goals mandated by Executive Order 14057. Because this was a proposed 
increase, there would not be a reduction in hazardous fuels mitigation 
or wildfire preparedness as a result of the proposed ZEV fleet 
procurement.
Question Submitted by Hon. Doug LaMalfa, a Representative in Congress 
        from California
    Question 1. Chief Moore, according to an Environmental Impact 
Statement from the United States Forest Service, ``it is estimated that 
less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of fire retardant drops may reach the 300 
or larger buffer'' for restricted zones of aerial fire retardant use. 
Despite the minuscule amount of fire retardant that goes near 
waterways, and its safety record, fire retardant is under attack by 
radical activists who, through the courts, are attempting to force the 
Forest Service to obtain NPDES permits per the Clean Water Act and/or 
stop its use altogether. It is my understanding that the Forest service 
is working with EPA to develop a general permit for aerial fire 
retardant; but it will take 2 to 3 years to develop, and 47 states 
would issue their own permits, which would add another year to the 
process. The West is facing a true wildfire crisis. We no longer have a 
fire season, rather than a fire year; and wildfires have only gotten 
worse in recent years. We simply don't have years to wait for the 
Forest Service to acquire Federal permits for continued use of this 
critical tool, when lives, homes, and our forests are at severe risk of 
devastating wildfire. Chief, can you comment on fire retardant and the 
Forest Service's use of this important tool? How does USDA and the 
Forest Service plan to ensure the continued use of fire retardant when 
EPA is indicating it will take years to develop a permit? What will 
happen if the Forest Service is forced to stop using fire retardant 
and/or be required to acquire unnecessary permits for its continued 
use?
    Answer. On May 26, 2023, Judge Dana L. Christensen of the Montana 
Federal district court issued an order in the case of Forest Service 
Employees for Environmental Ethics v. United States Forest Service 
(case 9:22-cv-00168-DLC). The order states that the ``USFS is not 
enjoined from utilizing the aerial deployment of fire retardant as a 
tool to fight wildfires.''
    Aerial application of fire retardant is part of the Forest 
Service's integrated firefighting strategy and is an essential tool 
that the Forest Service uses in various situations in support of ground 
resources. Fire retardant is intended to slow the rate of fire spread 
by cooling and coating fuels, depleting the fire of oxygen, and slowing 
the rate of fuel combustion as the retardant's inorganic salts change 
how fuels burn. Retardant has a lasting capability and continues to be 
effective when dry to slow or reduce fire behavior. This gives 
firefighters time to get in place, safely and effectively engage a 
fire, and meet the goals and objectives for the incident. When the 
Forest Service deems the use of retardant appropriate, firefighters 
strategically place retardant in locations that give ground resources 
and other aerial resources time to engage, which gives them a much 
higher probability of success. The Forest Service prioritizes the use 
of retardant to support initial attack fires and ensure the fires can 
be contained quickly by ground resources to protect high values at risk 
(communities and high value lands).
    The Forest Service relies on fire retardant as an essential tool to 
enable safe deployment of ground-based firefighting resources. While we 
cannot precisely predict the impact of not being able to use retardant, 
we can say that without retardant, our firefighting capability would be 
diminished The Forest Service is committed to Clean Water Act 
compliance and protection of water quality and keeping our communities 
and wildland firefighters safe. We are working with the Environmental 
Protection Agency to develop a National Pollution Discharge Elimination 
System general permit, which is expected to take over 2 years. The 
Forest Service also needs to engage with 47 states in obtaining the 
necessary permits.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Barry Moore, a Representative in Congress 
        from Alabama
    Question 1. This spring, Alabama tracked below average during the 
wildfire season due to our private forester's robust resource 
management. The Alabama Forestry Commission responded to 927 wildfires 
this year, as opposed to 2,500 wildfires in years prior. Although 
wildfires occurred with less frequency in Alabama this year, 927 fires 
it still too many--these fires threaten rural communities, those who 
live there and their livelihoods. Does the Forest Service have options 
to engage private forest owners on wildfire prevention efforts, such as 
cross boundary fuel breaks and fuel reduction projects? Will you keep 
this Committee informed of how you are working with private forest 
owners to address the wildfire crisis, especially in the southeast?
    Answer. The Forest Service has a long history of working 
collaboratively across ownership boundaries to reduce wildfire risk and 
improve forest conditions. The agency is grateful for the opportunities 
provided in the IIJA and IRA to increase the pace and scale of our 
wildfire risk reduction work. These investments are a critical down 
payment to the agency's overall funding which is needed to truly meet 
the need of the wildfire crisis across the country. The Wildfire Crisis 
Strategy outlines the need to treat approximately 20 million acres on 
NFS lands and an additional 30 million acres across all other 
jurisdictions. This work includes fuels mitigation as well as 
prevention, across ownerships.
    The agency will continue to use all funding sources to focus on the 
full implementation of the Wildfire Crisis strategy, utilizing private 
forestland programs such as State Fire Assistance (Capacity), the 
Community Wildfire Defense Grant Program, Landscape Scale Restoration, 
and Cross-Boundary Hazardous Fuels funding to treat non-NFS lands in 
close coordination with work on Federal lands. This cross-boundary 
focus is important in states such as Alabama with mixed ownership 
landscapes. We will keep the Committee informed of how the Forest 
Service is working with private forest owners to address the wildfire 
crisis.

    Question 2. In the IRA, $5 billion was obligated to the Forest 
Service to spend on both Federal and non-Federal forests. This is in 
addition to the new and expanded authorities provided to the Forest 
Service in the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills. How have you used this funding 
to help private forest owners, especially those in southeast Alabama, 
to reduce wildfire risk and improve forest health? How can this 
Committee work with you to provide proper oversight of this funding?
    Answer. The IRA Hazardous Fuels provision is only eligible for 
Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) areas as defined by the Healthy Forest 
Restoration Act 2003 on NFS lands, not privately owned forest lands. 
However, other provisions in the IRA and IIJA can be used to address 
forest health issues on non-Federal lands. For example, the IRA Urban 
and Community Forestry program provided over $1.25 billion of IRA 
funding to state agencies for competitive grant programs. Of that 
total, $8.57 million went to the State of Alabama. The Wood Innovations 
Program encourages use of wood material from fire risk reduction and 
forest health treatments and announced $10 million in IRA funded 
projects in June 2023. Also, the $1.5 billion of IIJA funds for 
Community Wildfire Defense Grants will help further wildfire mitigation 
and risk projects on private lands.
    The IRA Landowner Assistance provisions regarding climate and 
forest resilience, targeted especially for underserved and small 
acreage landowners, may provide additional opportunities, and those 
funding opportunities will be announced in the coming months. Through 
IRA, IIJA, and regular appropriations, the Forest Service has provided 
the State of Alabama over $8 million to support activities on state, 
private or Tribal lands.

                                  [all]