[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PROMOTING FOREST HEALTH AND
RESILIENCY THROUGH IMPROVED ACTIVE
MANAGEMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY AND HORTICULTURE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 10, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-14
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-970 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota, Ranking
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia, Vice Minority Member
Chairman DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas JIM COSTA, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
DOUG LaMALFA, California ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio, Vice
DON BACON, Nebraska Ranking Minority Member
MIKE BOST, Illinois SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina
TRACEY MANN, Kansas JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
BARRY MOORE, Alabama GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
KAT CAMMACK, Florida JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan
JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee ADAM GRAY, California
RONNY JACKSON, Texas KRISTEN McDONALD RIVET, Michigan
MONICA De La CRUZ, Texas SHOMARI FIGURES, Alabama
ZACHARY NUNN, Iowa EUGENE SIMON VINDMAN, Virginia
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin JOSH RILEY, New York
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington JOHN W. MANNION, New York
TONY WIED, Wisconsin APRIL McCLAIN DELANEY, Maryland
ROBERT P. BRESNAHAN, Jr., CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
Pennsylvania SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina
DAVID J. TAYLOR, Ohio
______
Parish Braden, Staff Director
Brian Sowyrda, Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture
DOUG LaMALFA, California, Chairman
BARRY MOORE, Alabama, Vice Chair ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon, Ranking
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina Minority Member
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi JIM COSTA, California
JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington ADAM GRAY, California
TONY WIED, Wisconsin JOSH RILEY, New York, Vice Ranking
Minority Member
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Craig, Hon. Angie, a Representative in Congress from Minnesota,
opening statement.............................................. 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
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
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
Pennsylvania, opening statement................................ 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Witnesses
Barnes, Jamie, Director/State Forester, Utah Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands,
Salt Lake City, UT; on Behalf of National Association of State
Foresters...................................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Dane, Bradley ``Scott'', Executive Director, American Loggers
Council, Gilbert, MN........................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Monohan, Ph.D., Carrie, Director of Natural Resources, Mooretown
Rancheria of Maidu Indians, Oroville, CA....................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 32
DeLuca, Ph.D., Thomas H., Dean, College of Forestry, Oregon State
University; Director, Oregon Forest Research Laboratory, OSU,
Corvallis, OR.................................................. 34
Prepared statement........................................... 36
PROMOTING FOREST HEALTH AND
RESILIENCY THROUGH IMPROVED ACTIVE
MANAGEMENT
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in
Room 1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doug LaMalfa
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives LaMalfa, Moore, Baird,
Wied, Thompson (ex officio), Salinas, Costa, Riley, and Craig
(ex officio).
Staff present: John Busovsky, Laurel Lee Chatham, John
Hendrix, Sofia Jones, John Konya, Ari Perlmutter, Emma Simon,
Michael Stein, and Jackson Blodgett.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LaMALFA, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA
The Chairman. Welcome. Thank you for joining our hearing
today entitled, Promoting Forest Health and Resiliency Through
Improved Active Management. After brief opening remarks,
Members will receive testimony from our witnesses today, and
then the hearing will be open to questions.
So, in consultation with the Ranking Member and pursuant to
Rule XI(e)(1), I want to make Members of the Subcommittee aware
that other Members of the full Committee may join us today.
So, with that, once again, welcome. Today, we will be
hearing from a panel of witnesses to discuss the National
Forest System, state and private forests, and the many issues
before the U.S. Forest Service and the communities located in
those forested areas. Today's hearing is also an opportunity to
receive feedback on these important issues and recommendations
on what Congress could do to encourage more active management
of our forests, to restore them, improve forest health,
encourage the use of more forest products, and, very
importantly, reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire in
areas that are at the highest risk of these ever-present
dangers.
That last part is especially important in the West. We
continue to witness devastating wildfires year after year as
millions of acres of forestland are burned annually--the loss
of forests, homes, property, wildlife, the environmental
damage--so much more than we should be enduring, so it,
unfortunately, continues to be a challenge as we constantly
face this in the West. The increased severity of the impacts of
wildfires is the result of inadequate management and, in some
cases, outright mismanagement of our forestlands over decades.
In this year alone, more than 47,000 wildfires in the U.S. have
burned more than 4 million acres of land. As of yesterday, we
have some 66 large fires currently burning in 12 states,
including--in the West: Idaho, California, Montana, Washington,
Oregon, and several others. Earlier in the year, we saw an
unprecedented urban fire situation in southern California,
which is, indeed, an unfortunate example of what if we aren't
prepared for these threats in all aspects.
What was once a fire season, especially in southern
California, seems to be now more of a fire year, a constant
year-round effect. Even now, fires rage across the northern and
eastern parts of my own district, my colleagues in Oregon,
Nevada, as we named them off, burning thousands of acres of
land in devastating wildfires that, ultimately, are
preventable. It is a crisis. More needs to be done to increase
the pace and scale of forest management and reduce the levels
of hazardous fuels across our forests. We need every tool in
the toolbox. We need to be thinking about partnerships and
management on a much larger scale than we have in the recent
past.
I appreciate many of the actions taken by this
Administration this year to do just that, specifically, the
identification of new acreage in need of treatment and plans to
ramp up the use of emergency authorities. Those are good
starts. Another promising initiative is the effort to increase
timber harvest levels above the current targets. For decades,
harvesting National Forests has remained far below previous
levels and below the amount authorized in current plans.
Increasing these goals will help support forest products, rural
communities, and overall management of the National Forest
System. With all that in mind, Congress still has much more to
do to support the agency, the states, counties, Tribes, and
other partners to accelerate forest management.
Last year's House farm bill--the Farm, Food, and National
Security Act of 2024 (H.R. 8467, 118th Congress) provided a
variety of new tools and authorities intended to expand
partnerships, continue cross-boundary management, improve
environmental processes, and help grow new markets for forest
products. These are positive reforms that will help land
managers restore our forests and protect communities by
reducing the threat of wildfire. I support these reforms. I am
hopeful this Committee and Congress will soon pass a new farm
bill and see these many improvements signed into law.
Thank you to all our witnesses for being here today, as
well as our colleagues on the panel. Your experience and
testimony as witnesses are invaluable as this Committee, and as
Congress, considers ways to better manage our forests and truly
improve wildlife conditions. And with that, I would like to
also specifically acknowledge from my home district, Carrie
Monohan from Mooretown Rancheria, for traveling all the way
from California. I know what that is like. Welcome to all of
our witnesses, and we look forward to your testimony and
perspectives.
[The prepared statement of Mr. LaMalfa follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Doug LaMalfa, a Representative in Congress
from California
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to today's Forestry and
Horticulture Subcommittee hearing titled ``Promoting Forest Health and
Resiliency Through Improved Active Management.''
Today we will be hearing from a panel of witnesses to discuss the
National Forest System, state and private forests, and the many issues
before the U.S. Forest Service and communities located in forested
areas.
Today's hearing is also an opportunity to receive feedback on these
important issues and recommendations on what Congress can do to
encourage more active management of our forests to restore them,
improve forest health, encourage the use of more forest products, and
reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire in areas that are at highest
risk of these ever-present disasters.
That last part is especially important. In the West, we continue to
witness devastating wildfires year after year as millions of acres of
forestland are burned annually. The loss of forests, homes and
property, and unfortunately lives continues to be a challenge we
constantly face in the West.
The increased severity and impacts of wildfires is the result of
inadequate management, and in some cases, outright mismanagement of our
forestlands over decades.
In this year alone, more than 47,000 wildfires in the U.S. have
burned more than 4 million acres of land. As of yesterday, we have some
66 large fires currently burning in 12 states; including Idaho,
California, Montana, Washington, Oregon, and several others.
Earlier in the year, we saw the unprecedented urban fires in
southern California, which was an unfortunate example of what can
happen if we aren't prepared for these threats. What was once a fire
season, is now more of a fire year.
Even now fires rage across the northern and eastern parts of my
district, burning thousands of acres of land in devastating wildfires
that ultimately are preventable.
This is a crisis and more needs to be done to increase the pace and
scale of forest management and reduce the levels of hazardous fuels
across our forests.
We need every tool in the toolbox; and we need to be thinking about
partnerships and management on a much larger scale than we have in the
past.
I appreciate many of the actions that the Trump Administration has
taken this year to do just that. Specifically, the identification of
new acreage in need of treatment and plans to ramp up the use of
emergency authorities are good starts.
Another promising initiative is the effort to increase timber
harvest levels above the current targets. For decades, harvesting in
the National Forest System has remained far below previous levels, and
below the amount authorized in current plans.
Increasing those goals will help support forest products, rural
communities, and the overall management of the National Forest System.
With that all in mind, Congress still has much more to do to
support the agency, the states, counties, Tribes, and other partners to
accelerate forest management.
Last year's House farm bill--the Farm, Food and National Security
Act--provided a variety of new tools and authorities intended to expand
partnerships, continue cross-boundary management, improve environmental
processes, and help grow new markets for forest products.
These are positive reforms that will help land managers restore our
forests and protect communities by reducing the threat of wildfire.
I support these reforms and am hopeful this Committee and Congress
will soon pass a new farm bill and see these many improvements signed
into law.
Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today. Your
experience and testimony are invaluable as this Committee and Congress
consider ways to better manage our forests and truly improve wildfire
conditions.
I'd also like to specifically acknowledge Dr. Carrie Monohan with
the Mooretown Rancheria for traveling all the way from California to be
here today.
Welcome to all of our witnesses, and we look forward to your
testimony and perspectives.
With that, I will yield to Ranking Member Salinas for any opening
remarks she would like to provide.
The Chairman. I will now yield to our Ranking Member
Salinas for any her opening remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANDREA SALINAS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM OREGON
Ms. Salinas. Well, thank you, Chairman LaMalfa, for
convening us today, and thank you to our witnesses for being
here and making the trek out. And I especially want to thank
Dean DeLuca, who has consistently provided my team and me with
valuable input that informs our work here in Washington. I know
that Dean's testimony and answers today, along with the
perspectives of our other distinguished witnesses, will give
this Subcommittee important insights as we consider the future
of active forest management across the country.
I want to be clear at the outset of this hearing, active,
science-based management is not about clear-cutting large
swaths of forests. It is about targeted thinning, prescribed
fire, fuels reduction, and other practices that restore balance
to ecosystems and reduce wildfire risks to our communities. We
can prevent and combat catastrophic wildfires without
irreparably harming and damaging the habitat and ecosystems we
require to survive as humans. Unfortunately, even as the need
for active management has grown more urgent, recent actions by
the Trump Administration have undermined the Forest Service's
ability to actually meet that challenge. The Department of
Agriculture's proposed reorganization, which would centralize
staff and research in distant hubs, threatens to strip away
local expertise and the trusted partnerships that are essential
for success. That includes longstanding collaborations with
institutions like the Oregon State University. Workforce
reductions have only worsened the problem. As many as 5,000
Forest Service employees have been lost this year when the
agency already isn't meeting its needed staffing requirements.
These personnel cuts have primarily impacted staff who were
relatively new to their roles, as well as the agency's most
experienced staff nearing the end of their careers. The result
is critical gaps in knowledge, research, and local capacity at
the very moment when we should be scaling up all of these
efforts.
On top of these workforce challenges, the Trump
Administration's budget proposes deep reductions to the very
programs that help state, Tribal, and private partners carry
out active management. These are the programs that fund
cooperative agreements, technical assistance, and cross-
boundary projects. Cutting them undermines the ability of
states and Tribes to match Federal efforts on the ground,
weakening the partnerships we know are essential for forest
health.
That leads me to a larger point. The success of active
forest management depends on partnerships. Tribes, states and
local governments, universities, and private landowners all
bring unique tools and expertise to this work. Programs like
Good Neighbor Authority, Service First agreements, and shared
stewardship show what is possible when we work together. In
Oregon, we have seen firsthand how impactful these partnerships
can be, and institutions like Oregon State have proven how
seamlessly they can work with their Federal partners. But
instead of strengthening these partnerships, the Trump
Administration has pursued theatrical actions that will
undermine our ability to meaningfully improve the health and
resilience of our forests.
One example is Secretary Rollins' repeal of the 2001
Roadless Rule, which she justified as a way to expand active
management and reduce wildfire risk. The truth is that roadless
areas are remote and costly to access. They are not landscapes
where decades of logging and deferred management have led to
overstock and increased fire risk. They are not where wildfire
poses the greatest threat to communities, people, and property.
In fact, research shows that fire risk only increases in areas
with roads and human activities. Our priority must be to focus
on active management where the risk is highest, not to rescind
protections in hopes of opening up new areas for industrial
access.
The Subcommittee has a responsibility to ensure that the
Forest Service has the resources, workforce, and research
capacity it needs to carry out its mission and ensure the
health and resilience of our nation's forestlands. We must
advance policies in the upcoming farm bill and beyond that
expand science-informed management, strengthen partnerships,
and keep our focus squarely on protecting people, communities,
and ecosystems at risk. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses and working together to chart a path forward that
will help us achieve these goals.
Thank you so much, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Salinas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Andrea Salinas, a Representative in Congress
from Oregon
Thank you, Chairman LaMalfa, for convening us today, and thank you
to our witnesses for making the trip.
I especially want to thank Dean DeLuca, who has consistently
provided my team and me with valuable input that informs our work here
in Washington. I know the Dean's testimony and answers today, along
with the perspectives of our other distinguished witnesses, will give
this Subcommittee important insights as we consider the future of
active forest management in this country.
I want to be clear at the outset of this hearing--active, science-
based management is not about clear-cutting large swaths of forest. It
is about targeted thinning, prescribed fire, fuels reduction, and other
practices that restore balance to ecosystems and reduce wildfire risks
to communities. We can prevent and combat catastrophic wildfires
without irreparably damaging the habitat and ecosystems we require to
survive as humans.
Unfortunately, even as the need for active management has grown
more urgent, recent actions by the Trump Administration have undermined
the Forest Service's ability to meet that challenge.
The Department of Agriculture's proposed reorganization, which
would centralize staff and research in distant hubs, threatens to strip
away local expertise and trusted partnerships that are essential for
success. That includes long-standing collaborations with institutions
like Oregon State University.
Workforce reductions have only worsened the problem. As many as
5,000 Forest Service employees have been lost this year, when the
agency already isn't meeting it's needed staffing requirements. These
personnel cuts have primarily impacted staff who were relatively new to
their roles, as well as the agency's most experienced staff nearing the
end of their careers. The result is critical gaps in knowledge,
research, and local capacity at the very moment when we should be
scaling up our efforts.
On top of these workforce challenges, the Trump Administration's
budget proposes deep reductions to the very programs that help state,
Tribal, and private partners carry out active management. These are the
programs that fund cooperative agreements, technical assistance, and
cross-boundary projects. Cutting them undermines the ability of states
and Tribes to match Federal efforts on the ground, weakening the
partnerships we know are essential for forest health.
That leads me to a larger point--the success of active forest
management depends on partnerships. Tribes, states, local governments,
universities, and private landowners all bring unique tools and
expertise. Programs like Good Neighbor Authority, Service First
agreements, and shared stewardship show what's possible when we work
together. In Oregon, we have seen firsthand how impactful these
partnerships can be, and institutions like Oregon State have proven how
seamlessly they can work with their Federal partners.
But, instead of strengthening these partnerships, the Trump
Administration has pursued theatrical actions that will undermine our
ability to meaningfully improve the health and resilience of our
forests.
One example is Secretary Rollins's repeal of the 2001 Roadless
Rule, which she has justified as a way to expand active management and
reduce wildfire risk.
The truth is that roadless areas are remote and costly to access.
They are not the landscapes where decades of logging and deferred
management have led to overstock and increased fire risk. They are not
where wildfire poses the greatest threat to communities, people, and
property. In fact, research shows that fire risk only increases in
areas with roads and human activities. Our priority must be to focus on
active management where the risk is highest, not to rescind protections
in hopes of opening new areas for industrial access.
This Subcommittee has a responsibility to ensure the Forest Service
has the resources, workforce, and research capacity it needs to carry
out its mission and ensure the health and resilience of our nation's
forestlands. We must advance policies in the upcoming farm bill and
beyond that expand science-informed management, strengthen
partnerships, and keep our focus squarely on protecting people,
communities, and ecosystems at risk.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and working together
to chart a path forward that will help us achieve these goals.
Thank you, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Salinas. We will recognize our
Chairman of our Agriculture Committee, Mr. Thompson, for his
comments.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member, and thanks to our witnesses for being here today.
Chairman and Ranking Member, great job with the folks you have
brought to the table for this hearing. I am excited to read
their testimony. I am excited to hear from them. Coming to
Washington is never easy, but it is so important for you to be
here and to share your perspectives today, to bring your
expertise.
For decades, our nation's forests have seen a decline in
forest health due to a lack of management, invasive species
outbreaks, overgrowth, and other factors. I have been proud of
the work this Committee has done over the past several farm
bill cycles to provide the Forest Service with a number of
tools and authorities intending to encourage more active
management, more partnerships, and the use of forest products,
expanding the markets. For example, this includes the
authorization of the Good Neighbor, authorities for cross-
boundary projects, and expanded categorical exclusions such as
insect and disease CEs, just to name a few. These are
commonsense reforms that will help encourage more landscape-
scaled management of the National Forest System and adjacent
forestlands.
Now, given the scale of the restoration and the fuels
reduction needed on millions of acres, we must be thinking
about management on a much larger landscape scale. Now, while I
remain encouraged by many of the President's Executive Orders
and management actions proposed by the Forest Service,
particularly the efforts to increase harvest above the current
targets, this Committee must also do its part to support the
agency to help get more work on the ground as quickly and as
effectively as possible. Last year, this Committee favorably
reported the Farm, Food, and National Security Act to deliver a
new farm bill for rural America. Title VIII, the forestry
title, expanded on the good work that this Committee has done
in the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills in a variety of ways to
encourage more management, more market opportunities for forest
products, and commonsense improvements to environmental
processes and Forest Service administration. We are now 2 years
past the original expiration of the 2018 Farm Bill, and the
time to act on a new law is now.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how we can
encourage and improve forest health and resiliency and what
this Committee should also be thinking about to further support
forest managers and rural communities. And with that, Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
from Pennsylvania
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our witnesses for being
here today.
Coming to Washington is never easy but it is so important for you
to be here and share your perspectives today.
For decades, our nation's forests have seen a decline in forest
health due to a lack of management, invasive species outbreaks,
overgrowth, and other factors.
I have been proud of the work this Committee has done over the past
several farm bill cycles to provide the Forest Service with a number of
new tools and authorities intending to encourage more active
management, more partnerships, and the use of forest products.
For example, this includes the authorization of Good Neighbor,
authorities for cross-boundary projects, and expanded categorical
exclusions such as the insect and disease CE, just to name a few.
These are commonsense reforms that will help encourage more
landscape-scale management of the National Forest System and adjacent
forestlands. Given the scale of the restoration and fuels reduction
needed on millions of acres, we must be thinking about management on a
much larger landscape scale.
While I remain encouraged by many of the President's Executive
Orders and management actions proposed by the Forest Service,
particularly the efforts to increase harvest above the current targets,
this Committee must also do it's part to support the agency to help get
this more work on the ground as quickly and effectively as possible.
Last year, this Committee favorably reported the Farm, Food, and
National Security Act to deliver a new farm bill for rural America.
Title VIII expanded on the good work this Committee has done in
prior farm bills in a variety of ways to encourage more management,
more market opportunities for forest products, and commonsense
improvements to environmental processes and Forest Service
administration.
We're now 2 years past the original expiration of the 2018 Farm
Bill and the time to act on a new law is now.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how we can
encourage improved forest health and resiliency, and what this
Committee should also be thinking about to further support forest
managers and rural communities.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will recognize our
Ranking Member, Angie Craig, for any comments she would have to
make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANGIE CRAIG, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA
Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
to my colleagues for organizing this hearing, and especially to
our witnesses for taking time out of your busy schedules to be
here today.
I am pleased to see the Committee engage more on forestry
issues and, specifically, the current conversation about the
future of the U.S. Forest Service. I cannot overstate my
concern over the hollowing out of the Forest Service in recent
months. We have lost countless dedicated public servants, many
of whom held wildfire certifications, served on the line during
fire season, and played essential support roles for the
agency's core functions. In total, the agency has lost more
than 5,000 employees, amounting to nearly 15 percent of the
total workforce. I hope our witnesses will speak to the effect
this downsizing is having or may have on the Forest Service's
ability to fulfill its critical mission.
Many of this Administration's policies regarding the Forest
Service are deeply concerning. They have recklessly proposed
slashing Federal funding for state, Tribal, and private
forestry programs that provide critical technical and financial
assistance to forest landowners and land managers helping to
conserve our nation's forests and protect vulnerable
communities from wildfire. I know we have witnesses here today
that can share with us the importance of these farm bill-
authorized programs. The President's budget also included the
total elimination of funding for all but one of the Forest
Service's research and development programs. The world-class
scientists at Forest Service research stations throughout the
country work every day to develop early warning technology that
keeps our communities and firefighters on the frontlines safe.
They analyze data to identify where we are most vulnerable to
fire, landslides, or insect and disease outbreaks, and test
responses so that we can protect our communities with evidence-
based management practices. My colleagues on this Subcommittee
cannot ignore the risk this Administration is taking here in
managing these critical issues.
Proposals to move wildfire activity out of the Forest
Service, especially during an active fire season, are ill
informed and threaten the agency's comprehensive approach to
forest management. Additionally, the Administration's
announcement to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule puts our forests
at greater risk of wildfire, watershed degradation, and
wildlife habitat loss. There are more high-priority acres that
need management to reduce these risks than we currently have
capacity to treat. We should target these rather than reopening
a decades-old political fight that is sure to result in
litigation. I share this Administration's goal to increase
active management on Federal lands, and I agree that more
board-feet need to come off our National Forests to reduce the
risk of mega-fires, which has the added benefit of supporting
the wood products industry. But, do we even have the staff
capacity to accomplish our timber goals? And if we eliminate
Forest Service R&D, will the wood products industry end up
suffering more than it benefits from changes to Federal policy?
More recently, the USDA's half-baked reorganization plan
promises to consolidate forestry research scientists and
jeopardizes the work they are doing with universities and other
partners throughout the country.
Simply put, all these decisions undermine the Forest
Service's statutory requirement to manage our nation's forests
to meet the needs of present and future generations. A 5 year
farm bill represents a serious opportunity in front of this
Committee to not only address the commonsense issues that
everyone agrees need to be made, but also the challenges and
concerns which undermine the Forest Service's mission and
threaten forests across the country. Only if a farm bill
process is truly and meaningfully bipartisan and devoid of
poison pills will we be able to provide stability to the Forest
Service, clarify Congressional intent on the agency's
operations, and challenge some of the Administration's most
ill-informed and rash decisions. I look forward to working with
my colleagues, our witnesses, and the broader forestry
community on the way forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Craig follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Angie Craig, a Representative in Congress
from Minnesota
Thank you to my colleagues for organizing this hearing and to our
witnesses for taking time out of your busy schedules to be here today.
I am pleased to see this Committee engage more on forestry issues, and
specifically the current conversation about the future of the U.S.
Forest Service.
I cannot overstate my concern over the hollowing out of the Forest
Service in recent months. We have lost countless dedicated public
servants, many of whom held wildfire certifications, served on the line
during fire season and played essential support roles for the agency's
core functions. In total, the agency has lost more than 5,000
employees, amounting to nearly 15 percent of the total workforce. I
hope our witnesses will speak to the effect this downsizing is having
or may have on the Forest Service's ability to fulfill its critical
mission.
Many of this Administration's policies regarding the Forest Service
are deeply concerning. They have recklessly proposed slashing Federal
funding for state, Tribal and private forestry programs that provide
critical technical and financial assistance to forest landowners and
land managers helping to conserve our nation's forests and protect
vulnerable communities from wildfire. I know we have witnesses here
today that can share with us the importance of these farm bill-
authorized programs.
The President's budget request also included the total elimination
of funding for all but one of the Forest Service's research and
development programs. The world class scientists at Forest Service
research stations throughout this country work every day to develop
early warning technology that keeps our communities and firefighters on
the front line safe. They analyze data to identify where we are most
vulnerable to fire, landslides or insect and disease outbreaks and test
responses so that we can protect our communities with evidence-based
management practices. My Republican colleagues on this Subcommittee
cannot ignore the risks this Administration is taking here in managing
these critical issues.
Proposals to move wildfire activity out of the Forest Service,
especially during an active fire season, are ill-informed and threaten
the agency's comprehensive approach to forest management.
Additionally, the Administration's announcement to rescind the 2001
Roadless Rule puts our forests at greater risk of wildfire, watershed
degradation and wildlife habitat loss. There are more high-priority
acres that need management to reduce these risks than we currently have
capacity to treat. We should target these rather than reopening a
decades old political fight that is sure to result in litigation. I
share this Administration's goal to increase active management on
Federal lands. And I agree that more board-feet need to come off our
National Forests to reduce the risk of mega-fires, which has the added
benefit of supporting the wood products industry. But do we even have
the staff capacity to accomplish our timber goals? And if we eliminate
Forest Service R&D, will the wood products industry end up suffering
more than it benefits from changes to Federal policy?
Most recently, the USDA's half-baked reorganization plan promises
to consolidate forestry research scientists and jeopardizes the work
they're doing with universities and other partners throughout the
country. Simply put, all these decisions undermine the Forest Service's
statutory requirement to manage our nation's forests to meet the needs
of present and future generations.
A 5 year farm bill represents a serious opportunity in front of
this Committee to not only address the common-sense issues that
everyone agrees need to be made, but also the challenges and concerns
which undermine the Forest Service's mission and threaten forests
across the country. Only if a farm bill process is truly and
meaningfully bipartisan and devoid of poison pills will we be able to
provide stability to the Forest Service, clarify Congressional intent
on the agency's operations and challenge some of the Administration's
most rash decisions. I look forward to working with my colleagues, our
witnesses and the broader forestry community on the way forward.
Thank you and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Craig. Normally,
this would be the time I would have the witnesses give their
testimony, but we have multiple committees today, so I would
like to have the opportunity for our Members here to be able to
get their work in here before they would have to go. So, I am
going to recognize Mr. Moore for 5 minutes with a statement and
questions of the panel, so, panel, be ready, and we will get to
your comments in a moment here. Thank you.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our
witnesses for being here today.
I recently sat down for a conversation about the future of
space mining and how we might one day source minerals and
metals from beyond Earth to fuel innovation here at home, but
there is one resource the scientists have yet to find in space,
and that is wood. The Lord put our forests right here on Earth,
and they remain one of the most renewable, reliable resources
we have been blessed with, all while supporting jobs,
communities, and industries across Alabama and our entire
nation. Mr. Dane, your testimony described the Fix Our Forests
Act (H.R. 471) as comprehensive forest management. In your
view, what are the most important forest management reforms
provided by that legislation or the Farm, Food, and National
Security Act?
Mr. Dane. Mr. Chairman, Committee, thank you very much for
the opportunity to talk about that. The Fix Our Forests Act,
first of all, is a forest management and a wildfire mitigation
piece of legislation. The American--the logging industry are
just merely tools to help accomplish those objectives in the
Fix Our Forests Act. Now, there are quite a few things that are
included in the Fix Our Forests Act. One of them--I know this
somewhat controversial--is litigation reform, but there is no
denying the fact that litigation has dragged out billions of
board-feet of timber management for protracted periods of time
and resulted in many lost opportunities, so litigation reform
is important.
Let me see here. The Fix Our Forests Act, obviously they
are looking at increasing the scope and scale--or pace and
scale of forest management, and that is extremely critical as
well. The western states, particularly, that are dependent upon
Federal timber, have been choked out in many instances, to the
point where the supply was not there to support the mills
remaining viable. In California alone, there were 150 mills 20,
25 years ago. They are down to 27 mills there. So, increasing
the available timber supply is vital to supporting the
infrastructure that is necessary for forest management. As an
example, if there is no market, there is no management.
Mr. Moore. So, the litigation itself is slowing the process
of getting the timber to the mills. Is that kind of what I am
understanding, Mr. Dane? Is that part of it?
Mr. Dane. Yes.
Mr. Moore. What else is causing issues?
Mr. Dane. That is part of it. I mean, it drags it out for
multiple years. And as an example, fire salvage timber that is
put up for sale can be dragged out 6 years before it can
actually go to market. Eighteen months after the fire goes
through, the value of the timber is useless except for anything
more than biomass, so if we could salvage that within that 18
month period, we could add value to it and utilize that timber.
That is an example.
Mr. Moore. Gotcha. Mr. Dane, retaining saw mills,
obviously, and increase in forest product infrastructure
continues to be a challenge in many areas. Given that the
industry is a key partner in managing forests, do you think
there are ways that we can help sustain and support new
processing and infrastructure? I think the lawsuits are part of
that, but what else do you think we might could do from
Congress' standpoint to help?
Mr. Dane. Well, I think that a major step with this
Administration has occurred with the trade investigations and
the imports. As an example, the United States' sawmills are
operating at 72 percent capacity right now, and they can
obviously go up to 85+ percent capacity. We are the largest
importer of softwood lumber in the world right now. We can
produce more domestically. And as another example, Brazil is
exporting plywood to the United States while the United States
is closing plywood mills. So, trade is a very big factor
regarding increasing market share and supporting the current
infrastructure.
Mr. Moore. All right. Ms. Barnes, one last question. I have
about 45 seconds. We know coordination between state, local,
and Federal land managers and fire responders is an ongoing
workload. Can you tell us more about how this coordination
occurs before, during, and after a fire, and are there specific
barriers that hinder the cooperation?
Ms. Barnes. Yes. Thank you for the question. Interagency
coordination is key, especially in the State of Utah. State,
local, and Federal partners work together in a seamless space
of how to respond to wildfires and how to do forest management.
There are things that can hinder that at times based on
resource capacity, based on jurisdictional boundaries, but in
Utah, we are pretty good at responding to fires and working in
a seamless capacity. I like to tell people that wildfire is one
thing that we can't do alone. It takes all of us to do it, so
bringing in that interagency coordination from a local level
and to a state level and also a Federal level is something that
is very important, and it is something that we have to continue
to do.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Good luck in the
markup.
All right. Now, we will go back to the regularly-scheduled
programming here, so, again, panelists, thank you for joining
us. You know the rules. Each of you will have 5 minutes, and so
just watch the timer and watch the colors on the stoplight, and
you will know what to do.
So, let me first introduce Ms. Jamie Barnes, the Utah State
Forester in the Division of Forestry Fire and State Lands of
the Utah Department of Natural Resources. So, take it away, 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF JAMIE BARNES, DIRECTOR/STATE FORESTER,
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF
FORESTRY, FIRE AND STATE LANDS, SALT LAKE CITY, UT;
ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS
Ms. Barnes. Thank you, Chairman LaMalfa, and Ranking Member
Salinas, and Members of the Subcommittee, for holding this
hearing today and for the opportunity to testify before you on
behalf of the National Association of State Foresters. My name
is Jamie Barnes. I am the State Forester and Director of the
Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands in Utah. In my role,
I am responsible for overseeing forest health, and responding
to wildfires and managing sovereign lands in Utah. Established
in 1920, the National Association of State Foresters is
composed of the directors of forestry agencies in 50 states,
D.C., and all the U.S. Territories, and nations in compacts of
free association.
State Foresters have been tasked with implementing National
Forest policy priorities for over a century, providing
technical assistance to landowners, and managing 76 million
acres of state-owned forested land that supply critical timber.
State Foresters also work cooperatively to improve the
resilience and productivity of Federal lands. State Foresters
work to advance resilient landscapes and provide effective
wildfire response across 1.5 billion acres. NASF, the only non-
Federal entity on the National Multi-Agency Coordinating Group,
is a critical part of the national interagency fire
coordination that provides response on Federal lands and
manages the nation's largest, most complex fires. State
forestry agencies and local departments respond to 80 percent
of the fires nationwide.
Under the first Trump Administration, State Foresters
formalized their commitments to greater partnerships through
shared stewardship with the Forest Service and other agencies.
Utah is on our second shared stewardship agreement, the first
being signed in 2019 and the second in 2022. Utah has had great
success bringing partners together and stakeholders together to
focus on the right work in the right place at the right scale.
A total of $30 million has been invested in active forest
management actions, which include work in critical watersheds
that are high risk for wildfires. With President Trump's recent
Executive Orders, there has been a renewed emphasis on the role
of states in assisting with pressing challenges facing our
forests. Utah has taken a proactive approach with the Forest
Service, engaging in conversations around a shared stewardship
agreement or other supported model where we partner together in
land management. Utah values the partnerships we have built in
the state, and we support carrying out critical management
objectives together to meet increased acreage targets,
production goals, the ability to better serve our industry
partners and reduce wildfire risk in our rural communities,
revitalizing these communities for our future generations.
Good Neighbor Authority has been a critical tool for states
to increase the pace and scale of cooperative Federal land
management while providing economic opportunities for rural
communities. Through GNA, western states have completed over
66,000 acres of fuels and forest health projects, 291 timber
sales across 98,000 acres of Federal lands, and generating over
840 million of board-feet of timber. However, the ability for
GNA to meet current national needs is dependent on four levers:
sustaining the state and private forestry programs, integrating
state-Federal project planning, dedicated and predictable
funding for the GNA projects, and state discretion and
operational autonomy under GNA.
State staff with GNA responsibilities are frequently
supported by a broad range of Federal funding. On average,
state forestry agencies would lose 20 percent of their
workforce capacity if Forest Service and private and state
forestry programs were defunded. In addition, predictable and
increased funding for GNA projects cannot be understated
because not all states have Forest Service lands that have
robust timber markets or marketable timber. Forested lands in
Utah are one of the state's most valuable natural resources.
They provide scenic beauty, wildlife habitat, clean air, and
supply timber products. Most of the forested lands in each of
the states are held by private landowners or by the Forest
Service. In Utah, the Division 6 area offices employs a
forester who works with landowners to provide assistance to
those wishing to utilize or improve their forested lands. This
is made possible through Congressional authorities and funding.
It plays an important role in the work we do in Utah and
creates direct results on the ground that are cross-boundary,
benefiting communities and future generations to come.
NASF is grateful for the Committee's work this last year on
the farm bill to capture State Foresters' priorities, sustain
the active management for private forested lands, including
authorizing assistance for the State Action Plan, strengthening
our national reforestation capacity by codifying the RNGR, and
NASF looks forward to working with the Committee to address
additional amendments to the Conservation Reserve Program and
the Volunteer Fire Assistance Program. Thank you again for this
opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Barnes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jamie Barnes, Director/State Forester, Utah
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Fire and State
Lands, Salt Lake City, UT; on Behalf of National Association of State
Foresters
The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) is pleased to
provide written testimony to the House Agriculture Subcommittee on
Forestry and Horticulture for this important hearing on Promoting
Forest Health and Resiliency Through Improved Active Management. Thank
you, Chairman LaMalfa, Ranking Member Salinas, and Members of the
Subcommittee for holding this hearing today and for the opportunity to
testify on behalf of NASF.
Established in 1920, the National Association of State Foresters is
a nonprofit organization composed of the directors of forestry agencies
in the 50 states, five U.S. territories, three nations in compacts of
free association with the U.S., and the District of Columbia. State
Forestry Agencies have been tasked with implementing National Forest
policy priorities for over a century, underpinned by direction and
authorities provided by the House and Senate Agriculture Committee to
achieve the necessary scale and coordination that is otherwise out of
reach. Since the 2008 Farm Bill, this role has been supported by State
Forest Action Plans, guiding State Forestry Agencies in active
management and protection of state and private forests, which encompass
nearly \2/3\ of all forests nationwide. State Foresters provide
technical assistance to private landowners and directly manage 76
million acres of state-owned forestland that supply critical timber for
domestic uses. In addition, State Foresters and their agencies work to
improve the health, resilience, and productivity of Federal lands
through partnerships such as Shared Stewardship Agreements and farm
bill authorities such as Good Neighbor Authority and cross-boundary
hazardous fuel reduction projects.
In collaboration with local governments and Federal agencies, State
Foresters also work to advance resilient landscapes and fire-adapted
communities and provide safe, effective wildfire response on 1.5
billion acres, a large portion of which is in the wildland-urban
interface. NASF--the only non-Federal partner serving on the National
Multi-Agency Coordinating Group at the National Interagency Fire
Center--is a critical part of the national interagency coordination
that provides response on Federal lands and manages the nation's
largest, most complex fires. Collectively, State Forestry Agencies and
local fire departments respond to 80 percent of fires nationwide and in
2024 over a third of state and local dispatches through the National
Interagency Fire Center were deployed to battle fires on Federal lands.
As State Forester and Director of the Utah Division of Forestry,
Fire & State Lands, my agency is responsible for forest health,
responding to wildland fires and managing sovereign lands in Utah. In
Utah the approach to fighting wildfire is an interagency model through
coordinated efforts with state, Federal and local partners. This
collaborative framework, referred to as the Cooperative Wildfire
System, helps fund large fires throughout the state but also focuses on
prevention, preparedness and mitigation efforts in exchange for that
ability to delegate.
Meaningful, landscape-scale active forest management is spurred and
strengthened by Federal investment provided through the farm bill and
conveyed through the USDA Forest Service's State, Private, and Tribal
Forestry mission area, with the Natural Resources Conservation Service
and Farm Service Agency also playing significant partnership roles. We
thank the Committee for their work in the Farm, Food, and National
Security Act of 2024 to capture a number of State Forester priorities
to bring these tools and resources to bear and offer the following
perspectives and priorities as the Committee works towards a 2025 Farm
Bill.
Cooperative Federal Land Management through State Forestry Agencies
State Forestry Agencies provide boots-on-the-ground capacity to get
the work done quickly and effectively by leveraging a wide range of
investments made through the Forest Service and other Federal partners.
Thanks to the support under the first Trump Administration, over 30
states took the initiative to formalize their commitments to greater
partnership and collaboration through Shared Stewardship Agreements
with the Forest Service and other agencies. State Forestry Agencies
have played a vital role in ensuring the success of the collaborative
shared stewardship framework by coordinating key partners and
facilitating active management across all ownerships including Federal
lands.
Utah is on our second Shared Stewardship agreement, the first being
signed in 2019 and the second in 2022. Utah has had great success in
this area bringing partners and stakeholders to focus on the right
work, in the right place at the right scale. A total of $30 million has
been invested in this program in active forest management actions which
include work in critical watersheds that are at high risk for
wildfires.
With the President's March 2025 Executive Order 14225 Immediate
Expansion of American Timber Production and the Forest Service National
Active Management Strategy, there has been renewed emphasis on the role
of states in assisting with addressing the pressing challenges facing
our Federal forests, namely reducing catastrophic wildfire risk and
revitalizing rural economies. NASF supports the Trump Administration's
bold and proactive approach to forest management and affirms our
continued commitment to partnering across jurisdictions. Through Good
Neighbor Authority (GNA) and other authorities, State Forestry Agencies
are able to support the Forest Service in carrying out critical active
management treatments to meet domestic timber production goals, support
industry partners, and reduce wildfire risk across forested landscapes.
Utah has taken a proactive approach with the Forest Service
engaging in conversations around a renewed Shared Stewardship agreement
or other supported model where we partner together in land management.
Utah values the partnerships we have built in the state and we support
carrying out critical management objectives together to meet increased
acreage targets, production goals, the ability to better serve our
industry partners and reduce the wildfire risk in our rural communities
revitalizing these communities for our future generations.
GNA has been proven time and again as an effective tool for states
and the Forest Service to increase the pace and scale of improvements
to forests and watersheds, reducing wildfire risks, supporting cross-
boundary projects and coordination, and providing job opportunities for
rural communities. GNA has been utilized by over \2/3\ of the nation's
State Forestry Agencies since its enactment in the 2014 Farm Bill. In
this time, 13 state forestry agencies in the western United States have
reported a cumulative 170 agreements with the Forest Service,
completing over 66,000 acres of fuels and forest health projects and
291 timber sales across almost 98,000 acres. These timber sales have
generated over 840 million board-feet of timber and a combined net
value in excess of $80 million.
However, the ability for GNA meet the current needs on Federal
lands is dependent on four critical levers: sustained funding for the
Forest Service's State, Private, and Tribal Forestry programs,
integrated state and Federal planning for activities, treatments, and
long-term goals, dedicated and predictable funding for state GNA
projects, and state discretion and operational autonomy under GNA to
act effectively on needed active forest management activities. State
staff with GNA responsibilities are frequently supported by a broad
range of Federal funding including state, Private, and Tribal Forestry
programs, and a recent survey of NASF membership indicated that on
average State Forestry Agencies would lose 20 percent of their
workforce capacity if the programs were defunded, with individual
agency losses as high as 80 percent.
Additionally, the role of dedicated and predictable funding for
State Forestry Agencies to perform GNA cannot be understated,
especially as not all states and National Forest System lands have
robust timber markets and/or marketable timber that can sustain a state
GNA program. Given the Forest Service's request for states to
contribute to Congress and the Administration's goal of increasing
timber harvest and mitigating wildfire risk, additional Federal funds
will be required to bolster state GNA programs and projects. As further
strides are made between State Forestry Agencies and the Forest Service
on new Shared Stewardship Agreements and an increased utilization of
GNA--including the final implementation of the flexibilities provided
by the EXPLORE Act--we look forward to working with the Committee on
any statutory amendments for the 2025 Farm Bill to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of existing authorities.
In addition to GNA, NASF acknowledges and thanks the Committee for
a number of reauthorizations and expansions of cross-boundary and
Federal forest management authorities in the Farm, Food, and National
Security Act of 2024, including:
Reauthorization of Cross-boundary Hazardous Fuel Reduction
Projects (Section 8202)--The threat posed by wildland fire
requires a comprehensive all-lands approach to proactive forest
management and prevent the spread of wildfire between
jurisdictions. First championed by then-Senator Ted Stevens in
Fiscal Year 2002, cross-boundary hazardous fuels reduction
funding is allocated by Congressional direction to facilitate
coordinated fuels reduction on private lands in proximity to
National Forest System lands. This critical funding has
provided flexibility for the Forest Service to use the money
where it provides the most benefit for community protection.
With inconsistent national distribution of this capacity under
the Fiscal Year 2025 Continuing Resolution, we look forward to
working with the Committee to reauthorize this authority in the
2025 Farm Bill.
Amending the Definition of At-Risk Community (Section
8201)--The Healthy Forest Restoration Act contains a
problematic definition for ``at-risk community'' which is
restricted to wildland urban interface communities only within
the vicinity of Federal lands. This language has long been
viewed as a problem by NASF because it excludes communities
that have been identified as ``at-risk'' by state wildfire risk
assessments and other collaboratively developed tools used by
Federal and state agencies, such as the Pacific Northwest
Quantitative Wildfire Risk Assessment and the Southern Wildfire
Risk Assessment Portal.
National Forest System Management Authorities (Sections
8402, 8403, 8404, and 8411)--NASF is grateful for the
Committee's inclusion of the ``Cottonwood Fix''--clarifying the
criteria under which Federal land managers are not required to
re-initiate Endangered Species Act consultation--and the
reauthorization and expansion of categorical exclusions for
wildfire resilience projects, fuel breaks, and insect and
disease projects. These provisions can meaningfully increase
the pace and scale of cross-boundary forest management and
wildfire mitigation work.
Joint Chiefs' Landscape Restoration Partnership Program
(Section 8420)--NASF appreciates the Committee extending the
authorization for the Joint Chiefs' Program which--through
bringing to bear resources and expertise of the Forest Service
and the Natural Resources Conservation Service--has improved
the health and resilience of forest landscapes across National
Forest System lands and state, Tribal, and private land.
Sustaining Active Management of State and Private Forests through the
Farm Bill
Since the turn of the 20th century, Congress has recognized and
reinforced the need for partnership between the Federal Government and
states for the benefit of actively managing all of America's forests--
private, state, and Federal. Only a few years after the Forest Service
was created, Congress created the nexus between the Forest Service and
State Forestry Agencies with the Weeks Act of 1911 and the Clarke-
McNary Act of 1924, authorizing technical and financial assistance to
states for wildfire control and post-fire reforestation. Subsequent
legislative milestones in the form of the Cooperative Forest Management
Act of 1950, the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, the 1990
Farm Bill, and every farm bill since have further provided
Congressional direction and authorities to the Forest Service and its
role as a key partner to State Forestry Agencies in the active
management of state and private forestlands.
Forested lands in Utah are one of the state's most valuable natural
resources. They provide scenic beauty, wildlife habitat, clean air and
supply timber products. Most of the forested lands in the state are
held by private landowners or by the Forest Service. Each of the
Division's 6 area offices employs a forester who works with landowners
and to provide assistance to those wishing to utilize, improve or
conserve their forested lands, this includes reducing the risk of
catastrophic wildfire. This is made possible through Congressional
direction, authorities and funding. It plays an important role in the
work we do in Utah and creates direct results on the ground cross-
boundary benefiting communities and future generations to come.
NASF is grateful for the Committee's work in the Farm, Food, and
National Security Act of 2024 to capture a number of State Foresters'
key national priorities to sustain the active management of state and
private forestlands--or \2/3\ of all forests nationwide--including:
State Forest Action Plan Implementation Capacity (Section
8101)--Mandated by the 2008 Farm Bill, State Forest Action
Plans offer practical and comprehensive roadmaps for investing
Federal, state, local, and private resources where they can be
most effective in achieving national conservation goals.
Collectively, State Forest Action Plans make up one strategic
plan for America's forests. States have consistently advocated
for funding flexibility--that is the ability for each state to
receive funds that allow for the use of all the authorities of
the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act. By eliminating the
color of money associated with several different Federal
programs, State Forestry Agencies will be able to more
effectively utilize the resources needed to implement the
forest management goals of their individual State Forest Action
Plans, while bringing state, nonprofit, and philanthropic
support that states are uniquely able to unlock.
Supporting Reforestation through the Forest Service's
Reforestation, Nurseries and Genetic Resources (RNGR) Program
(Section 8305)--First created in 2001, the Forest Service's
RNGR Program provides assistance to states, Tribes and other
partners in native plant seed and seedling production, focusing
on adequate supplies of seedlings for conservation and
reforestation, propagation and planting methods, cost-effective
production and planting techniques, and--ultimately--tree
planting to address forest resilience, land reclamation, and
land rehabilitation after extreme fire events or other natural
disasters impacting forests. However, because the program has
been governed through Memorandums of Understanding between
agency deputy areas rather than as a standalone program, the
significant national reforestation demands on Federal, state,
and private lands, and an estimated $160 million in unmet
infrastructure needs at state and Tribal nurseries that serve
all landownerships, codifying and resourcing the RNGR Program
is critical. We greatly appreciate the Committee's work on
including this provision and ask for the addition of a critical
pay-for mechanism--identified funding from the Forest Service's
Reforestation Trust Fund--that is important for ensuring the
permanent nursery infrastructure program does not redirect
funds from other programs necessary for executing national
forestry priorities.
Bolstering the Emergency Forest Restoration Program (Section
8708)--The Emergency Forest Restoration Program--administered
by the Farm Service Agency with technical expertise from the
Forest Service--was codified in the 2008 Farm Bill and has
proven to be woefully inadequate and too cumbersome for most
landowners to benefit from. NASF applauds the work of the
Committee to allow for impacted private forest landowners to
receive 75 percent of cost of payment up front, as opposed to a
program design based on reimbursement. Timely and ecologically
proper timber salvage and reforestation helps ensure our
nation's private forestlands continue to provide public
benefits like clean air and water, recreational opportunities,
rural economic stimulus and more.
NASF also looks forward to working with the Committee to address
two further priorities as it considers a 2025 Farm Bill:
Utilizing the Conservation Reserve Program--In the face of
increasing conversion of farm and forestland to other uses like
commercial and residential development and the more recent
proliferation of solar farms--especially in the southeastern
United States--the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is a
critical incentive for keeping forests as forests. CRP-trees
acres under contract have declined precipitously in the past
decade and to reverse this trend, changes to current policy are
needed. These include allowing more re-enrollment opportunities
for stands of trees of all species on the condition they are
being actively managed to maintain healthy stand conditions,
financial support of mid-contract management through thinning
and prescribed fire, and allowing for the eventuality of
harvesting stands at maturity as part of sustainable forest
management. CRP-tree contracts are a high priority for states
in many parts of the country, especially the pine belt in the
South. These policy needs would allow for states to retain
discretion on setting their own priorities for CRP.
Modernizing Eligibility for the Forest Service's Volunteer
Fire Assistance Program--The Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA)
Program provides financial capacity to volunteer fire
departments (VFDs) protecting small, rural communities. State
and locals respond to 80 percent of wildland fires nationwide
and with expansion of the wildland-urban interface, the
frequency and complexity of fire has necessitated improved
collaboration with volunteer organizations. However, the
program's statutory eligibility requirements are over 40 years
old and do not acknowledge the reduced volunteerism, population
growth in areas served by existing VFDs, and some challenges in
VFDs meeting the match requirements. NASF is aligned with the
National Volunteer Fire Council and the International
Association of Fire Chiefs in proposing changing the qualifying
community population threshold from 10,000 to 15,000 or less,
changing the percent volunteer firefighting personnel threshold
from 80 percent to 70 percent or more, and allowing for
Secretarial discretion on waiving match requirement for VFDs,
similar to other fire and forestry programs.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee
today and provide testimony on behalf of NASF. We appreciate the
ongoing work of this Subcommittee to provide Federal and state forest
managers, as well as private landowners, with tools that increase the
pace and scale of active forest management, cross-boundary work, and
rapid and effective response to insects, disease and wildland fire. We
look forward to working with the Subcommittee, the Full Committee, and
our Federal partners to provide the collective insights of the nation's
State Foresters in a final 2025 Farm Bill.
I look forward to answering any questions the Subcommittee may
have.
The Chairman. Perfect. Thank you Ms. Barnes. Appreciate
your testimony. I now will recognize our next witness, Mr.
Scott Dane from the American Loggers Council. He is their
executive director. Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF BRADLEY ``SCOTT'' DANE, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, AMERICAN LOGGERS COUNCIL, GILBERT, MN
Mr. Dane. Chairman LaMalfa, Ranking Member Salinas, and
Committee Members, on behalf of the American Loggers Council, I
want to thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding
promoting forest health and resiliency through improved active
management. I am the Executive Director of the American Loggers
Council, which represents members in 49 states.
I would like to begin by addressing silviculture forest
management, which is the science of controlling the
establishment, growth, composition, and health of forests and
woodlands, and societal objectives, such as producing timber,
maintaining wildlife habitat, improving forest health,
recreation, and protecting watersheds on a sustainable basis.
This is accomplished by a range of practices, including
planting, thinning, and harvesting, to guide the development of
forests stands for desired outcomes. These sustainable forest
management activities are not being fully utilized on National
Forests, particularly as they apply to timber harvesting over
the past few decades.
The volume of timber harvest on National Forests has
declined by over 75 percent. Additionally, silvicultural
standards establish tree stand densities, trees per acre, that
is optimal for achieving healthy forest objectives. According
to top forest researchers, low-density stands that largely
eliminate tree competition are key to creating forest
resilience to the multiple stressors of severe wildfire,
drought, bark beetles, and climate change. They conclude that
managing for resilience requires drastically reducing
densities, as much as 80 percent of trees in some cases.
Tree mortality for the first time, according to the U.S.
Forest Service reports, exceeds tree growth by two times. Let
me repeat that: twice as many trees are dying in the National
Forests than are growing. Much of this mortality is driven by
wildfire. It is not timber harvesting. Timber harvesting only
represents 25 percent of the net tree growth, and seven times
more trees are dying than are being harvested. Logging isn't
the problem. In fact, it is a solution. These statistics
clearly indicate that National Forest management policy for the
past 3 decades has not worked. The health of our National
Forests are in decline.
This brings me to wildfire. Millions of acres of forest
burn annually. Fire science is basic. Three components are
necessary for fire: an ignition source, quite often, lightning
strikes, oxygen, and fuel. The only one that we can control is
fuel, and in the case of wildfires, unhealthy forests that are
overstocked and filled with dying and dead timber. In an effort
to begin reducing hazardous fuels from National Forest lands,
the American Loggers Council, in partnership with the U.S.
Forest Service, developed a Biomass Transportation Incentive
Pilot Project, which removed 120,000 green tons of hazardous
fuels, primarily biomass, and utilized it as feedstock for
biomass power generation. This successful demonstration evolved
into the USDA U.S. Forest Service Hazardous Fuels
Transportation Assistance Program that continues to remove
hazardous fuels from the National Forest landscape. This public
and private partnership is one of the many opportunities
available to collaboratively mitigate wildfire threats and
severity by reducing fuel loads and addressing the backlog of
landscape treatment.
The U.S. Forest Service has developed a wildfire crisis
strategy to begin addressing 50 million acres of high-risk
forest firesheds. The primary component of the wildfire crisis
strategy is fuel--timber--reduction. This Administration
recognizes these facts and has issued numerous Executive
Orders, initiated trade investigations, issued policy
directives, and taken other actions to improve forest
management and support the timber and forest products
industries. These directives need to be codified to ensure
their long-term implementation. This crisis a problem decades
in the making and will require decades to correct.
The most comprehensive legislation to codify this and other
forest management reforms is the Fix Our Forests Act. Passing
this legislation will ensure the forest management and wildfire
mitigation, regulations, policies, and procedures survive
political cycles. With the new Congress and Administration, the
American Loggers Council prepared a ``Roadmap to Recovery''
that identified the top seven priority issues and actionable
Congressional administrative responses. I have included a copy
with my testimony to be included in the Congressional record.
With over 150 mills closed across the United States in the
past 36 months, markets are seriously compromised. To promote
forest health and resiliency through improved active
management, markets are necessary. No markets, no management.
We are at a crossroads. Congress and the Administration must
take action to improve forest health through active management
before the logging and mill infrastructure deteriorates to a
point that forest management will no longer be possible. Thank
you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dane follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bradley ``Scott'' Dane, Executive Director,
American Loggers Council, Gilbert, MN
Chairman LaMalfa and Committee Members, on behalf of the American
Loggers Council, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify
regarding Promoting Forest Health and Resiliency Through Improved
Active Management.
I am the Executive Director of the American Loggers Council which
represents members in 49 states.
I would like to begin by addressing silviculture (forest
management), which is the science of controlling the establishment,
growth, composition, and health of forests and woodlands and societal
objectives, such as producing timber, maintaining wildlife habitat,
improving forest health, recreation, and protecting watersheds on a
sustainable basis. This is accomplished by a range of practices
including planting, thinning, and harvesting to guide the development
of a forest stand for desired outcomes.
These sustainable forest management activities are not being fully
utilized on our National Forests, particularly as they apply to timber
harvesting. Over the past few decades, the volume of timber harvest on
National Forests has declined by over 75%, from a high of 13 billion
board-feet to 3 billion board-feet.
Additionally, silvicultural standards establish tree stand density
(trees per acre) that is optimal for achieving healthy forest
objectives. According to top forest researchers: ``. . . low-density
stands that largely eliminate tree competition are key to creating
forests resilient to the multiple stressors of severe wildfire,
drought, bark beetles and climate change.'' They conclude that
``managing for resilience requires drastically reducing densities--as
much as 80% of trees, in some cases.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Operational resilience in western US frequent-fire forests:
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/
S0378112721010975?dgcid=author#preview-section-abstract
Authors: Malcolm P. North, USFS Pacific Southwest Research Station;
Ryan E. Tompkins, Department of Plant Sciences, University of CA,
Davis; Alexis A. Bernal, University of CA Cooperative Extension,
Plumas-Sierra; Brandon M. Collins, Department of Environmental Science,
Policy, and Management, Ecosystem Sciences Division, University of
California, Berkeley; Scott L. Stephens, Center for Fire Research and
Outreach, Univ. of CA, Berkeley; Robert A. York, USFS Pacific Southwest
Research Station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tree mortality for the first time (2016), according to USFS
reports,\2\ exceeds tree growth by two times. Let me repeat that--twice
as many trees are dying in the National Forests than are growing. Much
of this mortality is driven by wildfire. It is not timber harvesting.
Timber harvesting is only 25% of the net tree growth, and seven times
more trees are dying than are being harvested. Logging isn't the
problem; in fact, it is the solution. I have included a copy of this
report for the Congressional record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Annual Net Growth, Mortality, and Harvest on National Forest on
National Forest Timberlands 1952-2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These statistics clearly indicate that National Forest management
policy for the past 3 decades has not worked. The health of National
Forests is in severe decline.
This brings me to wildfire. Millions of acres of forests burn
annually. Fire science is basic. Three components are necessary for
fire: an ignition source (quite often lightning strikes), oxygen, and
fuel. The only one that we can control is fuel, and in the case of
wildfires, unhealthy forests that are overstocked and filled with dying
and dead timber.
In an effort to begin reducing hazardous fuels from National Forest
lands, the American Loggers Council, in partnership with the U.S.
Forest Service, developed the Biomass Transportation Incentive Pilot
project that removed 120,000 green tons of hazardous fuels (primarily
biomass) and utilized it as feedstock for biomass power generation.
This successful demonstration evolved into the USDA/USFS Hazardous
Fuels Transportation Assistance Program that continues to remove
hazardous fuels from National Forest landscapes.
This public-private partnership is one of many opportunities
available to collaboratively mitigate wildfire threats and severity by
reducing fuel loads and addressing the backlog of landscape treatment.
The USFS has developed a Wildfire Crisis Strategy to begin
addressing 50 million acres of high-risk forest firesheds. The primary
component of the Wildfire Crisis Strategy is fuel (timber) reduction.
The Administration recognizes these facts and has issued numerous
Executive Orders, initiated trade investigations, issued policy
directives, and taken other actions to improve forest management and
support the U.S. timber and forest products industries.
These directives need to be codified to ensure their long-term
implementation. This crisis is a problem--decades in the making and it
will require decades to correct. The most comprehensive legislation to
codify this and other forest management reforms is the Fix Our Forests
Act. Passing this legislation will ensure that forest management and
wildfire mitigation regulations, policies, and procedures survive
political cycles.
With the new Congress and Administration, the American Loggers
Council prepared A Road Map to Recovery \3\ that identified the top
seven priority issues and actionable Congressional and Administration
responses. I have included a copy with my testimony to be included in
the Congressional record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A Roadmap to Recovery, American Loggers Council 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With over 150 mills closed across the country in the past 36
months, markets are seriously compromised. To Promote Forest Health and
Resiliency Through Improved Active Management, markets are necessary.
No Markets, No Management
We are at a crossroads. Congress and the Administration must take
action to improve forest health through active management, before the
logging and mill infrastructure deteriorates to a point that forest
management will not be possible.
attachment 1
Annual Net Growth, Mortality, and Harvest on National Forest
Timberlands--1952-2016
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
attachment 2
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Dawn of a New Age in the American Timber Industry--A Road Map to
Recovery
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
A Roadmap To Recovery of the U.S. Timber Industry
The American Timber Industry is in a serious state of decline that
threatens the entire forest products (paper, lumber, bioenergy)
industry and public-private healthy forest management goals and
objectives. Human infrastructure continues to age (average logger age
over 55) and employment within the logging sector is declining 2%
annually over the past 20 years. The logging sector is the first link
in the forest industry supply chain supporting 900,000 jobs, with a
$300 billion U.S. economic impact. All of this is supported by 50,000
timber industry workers employed by small family multigenerational
logging and trucking businesses, without which the entire timber and
forest products industry would collapse. These jobs are rural in
nature, but supply materials for products that all of American society
depends on daily.
The factors contributing to the decline of the U.S. timber and
forest products industry have been identified and can be rectified
through proper trade policy, active forest management practices, new
forest products market development, maximizing transportation
efficiency, workforce development, de-weaponizing obstructionist
litigation, and favorable tax policy.
All of the challenges and threats to the timber and forest products
industry can be boiled down to one common denominator--markets. Markets
drive investment, investment drives development, development drives
competition, competition drives profitability, profitability drives
competitiveness, and competitiveness drives wages/benefits.
The following information identifies the priority issues and
actions that can serve as a road map to the recovery of the U.S. timber
and forest products industry that Congress and the Administration must
undertake.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
National Forest Management
Issue: National Forest Management
There is an obvious correlation between areas where declining
National Forest management dominates the landscape--and the occurrence
of unhealthy, overgrown and dense forests plagued by disease,
infestation and wildfire.
This National Forest decline creates a self-fulfilling downward
spiral of reduced timber management and harvest volume leading to a
loss of forest products mills/markets, which is then used to justify
continued reduction in timber sales volume that is inadequate to
support the supply needs of existing markets thereby causing the
failure of remaining markets and perpetuating the circular downward
spiral of forest health and industry. The end result of this harmful
National Forest situation is forest deterioration by fire, disease and
infestation. This deterioration fails to comply with the National
Forest Management Act of 1976, which requires the U.S. Forest Service
``to maintain effective land management''.
National Forest Plans identify the Allowable Sale Quantity that can
be harvested during a 10 year period, while maintaining sustainability
based on areas suitable for timber production. The U.S. Forest Service
and the Bureau of Land Management have failed to achieve this volume
during the past 3 decades.
The U.S. Forest Service currently harvests approximately 3 billion
board-feet of lumber, compared to 13 billion board-feet 40 years ago.
Today, the U.S. Forest Service spends more of their budget on wildfire
response than forest management. Ironically, of the nearly 30,000 U.S.
Forest Service employees, just 3% are foresters.
In Minnesota, where the National Forests represent 11% of the
forested land, it only contributes 4% of harvested timber. This trend
is significantly multiplied in regions (western states) where the
majority of public lands is managed by national agencies. These areas
also experience higher mortality, wildfire, overstocking, and lost
infrastructure. In contrast, regions that are majority privately
managed land, forest health and markets are more productive, healthy
and stable.
The U.S. has an abundant renewable resource that can be sustainably
managed to provide raw material for lumber and other forest products
production if active forest management is returned to the public
landscape.
A commitment to increased forest management timber harvest volume
will enable the remaining forest products industry infrastructure to
maintain sustainability while conveying a commitment that will secure
additional investment and growth. Thus, reversing the decline in
National Forest management and timber industry infrastructure, as well
as wildfire severity.
The National Forests will be critical to support the development
and expansion of domestic softwood lumber markets and the reduction in
softwood lumber imports as noted in the first issue.
Many rural counties and schools historically benefited from far
greater National Forest timber sales revenue, due to their proximity to
National Forests and the statutory timber harvest revenue sharing with
counties and schools from those National Forests. In response to a
reduction in timber management and sales--critical county and school
revenues paid by National Forests have declined. To offset the losses
and stabilize the revenue stream, Secure Rural Schools Funding (SRS)
was established by Congress in 2000, which provides revenue to counties
and schools. The Secure Rural Schools Funding represents a small
fraction of county and school revenue received 40 years ago (In 2024,
$250 million annually for 775 rural counties and 4,400 rural schools
across the country). However, the Secure Rural Schools Funding expired
at the end of 2024.
Many policies, actions and Executive Orders are politically-driven
to support environmental agendas, but have the unintended consequence
of further obstructing active forest management. However, recent
legislation has been introduced that would address and correct existing
ill-conceived policies, actions and Executive Orders that are being
abused in the furtherance of obstructing healthy forest management.
Action: Manage National Forests
The Fix Our Forests Act (FOFA) is comprehensive legislation
that would address many of the known shortcomings and
challenges that are inhibiting proper forest management. This
FOFA bill should be priority legislation passed to immediately
realign the healthy forest management objectives for the
National Forests.
Secure Rural Schools Act (SRS) reauthorization would be most
effective when paired with the Fix Our Forests Act (FOFA).
Passing these two bills together would accomplish the dual
benefits of improving National Forest management and
maintaining vital National Forest management revenue source for
rural counties, schools, forest management infrastructure, and
vibrant rural forest communities.
The U.S. Forest Service must increase active forest
management and timber harvest as per their current volume
``target''. This National Forest target is typically \1/2\ to
\1/3\ of the legally-authorized Allowable Sale Quantity; and
even at that reduced volume is rarely achieved. In Alaska, the
second largest National Forest, the Chugach has zero timber
harvest planned.
Litigation Reform is addressed in the Fix Our Forest Act.
Additionally, require litigating parties challenging USFS
forest management plans and activities to have ``standing'' and
to post bonds sufficient to cover the costs of defense, loss of
property/lives due to delay, and timber contract holder lost
revenue should the challenge be denied.
Direct the USFS to cease efforts based on EO 14072 to
inventory ``mature and old growth timber''.
Reform the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Multiple bills have been introduced in the House of
Representatives to amend NEPA, which would address flaws in the
statute that have resulted in unreasonable timelines and
litigation.
Pass a Congressional Review Act rescinding the uplisting of
the Northern Long Eared Bat from Threatened to Be Endangered.
This was passed in the House and Senate with bipartisan support
in 2023 but vetoed by President Biden.
Trade Policy
Issue: Trade Policy
The U.S. is the leading global importer of softwood lumber. The
primary source is Canada, followed by Brazil and China as well as
Europe. The U.S. continues to import wood products (plywood) from
Russia. In fact, manufactured wood products constituted over 50% of the
trade between the U.S. and Russia in 2024, increasing 53% in the latter
half of 2024. All while record numbers (100+) of forest products mills
close in the U.S., millions of acres of U.S. forests burn annually, and
over 10,000 jobs have been lost in the timber and forest products
industries in the past 24 months.
Clearly the U.S. demand and market exists for softwood lumber. The
U.S. should not be supporting the timber industry of other countries at
the demise of the U.S. forests and industry.
Additionally, in some cases, raw timber is shipped from the U.S.
(due to a lack of domestic mills that have gone offshore) to countries
that process it into finished products and then ship it back to the
U.S. markets.
The U.S. practices third party certification silvicultural based
forest management which ensures sustainable management of U.S. forests.
Today's U.S. timberlands exceed the acres of timberlands from 100 years
ago. U.S. forest management practices do not result in deforestation.
The only deforestation that occurs in the U.S. is due to urban
development and massive solar farms. Imposing additional redundant
administrative management requirements, as per the European Union
Deforestation Regulations, only adds more time and expense to the
operations and reduces efficiency and competitiveness.
Action: Fair Trade
Enact trade policy, including tariffs, to level the playing
field and allow for U.S. forest management, U.S. raw material
harvesting, U.S. forest products production, and create U.S.
jobs.
Enact and enforce a full ban on Russian origin lumber.
Inform the European Union that the United States has strict
sustainable forestry practices and standards recognized and, in
some cases, originating in Europe that ensure no deforestation
practices are conducted. In fact, the forested area of the
United States has increased over what it was 100 years ago.
Therefore, the U.S. will not be implementing the unnecessary
requirement of the ill-conceived European Union Deforestation
Regulations (EUDR). The EUDR is an environmental driven
initiative to further obstruct the timber industry, add
uncompensated costs, and generally a solution looking for a
problem where, regarding the U.S., one does not exist.
Safer Transportation
Issue: Interstate Truck Weight Restrictions
The U.S. transportation policy and inconsistencies creates a
competitive burden for agricultural products, including raw timber.
Weight limits on the Federal interstate systems vary drastically for
timber products, although it is the same interstate system. Foreign
transportation policy allows for heavier transportation weights than
parts of the United States.
Log Truck Weight Limits Examples
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canada (national roadways) 140,000 (up to) pounds based on
configuration
Michigan (164,000) 164,000 pounds w/11 axles
New England (2010 pilot, 2017 100,000/99,000 pounds w/6 axles
permanent) (Maine/Vermont)
Minnesota (2015. Limited to 23 99,000 Winter w/6 axles
miles)
Mississippi (2024) 88,000 pounds w/5 axles
Wisconsin (2015. Limited to 100,000 winter w/6 axles
designated routes)
North Carolina (new interstates 88,000 pounds w/5 axles
grandfathered in at state weights)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aside from these variances, states are restricted to 80,000 pounds
on their respective interstates.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation, the University of
Georgia, State of Mississippi, State of Maine, and other sources have
conducted studies and analysis of the road impacts, safety, braking
capacity, fuel consumption (mpg), CO2 emissions, miles
traveled, and truck trips of various configurations of logging trucks
using the Federal interstate system. All have concluded that there are
benefits in every category, particularly safety.
A recent study found that nearly 78% of all log truck fatal crashes
occurred in the Southeast region of the U.S. In these states, oncoming
cars infringing on the logging trucks' lanes were the leading cause of
logging truck accidents.
Routing these trucks off rural roadways, school zones, residential
neighborhoods, pedestrian areas, and narrower two-lane opposing traffic
routes will reduce accidents and improve safety.
The State of Maine documented a reduction in logging truck
accidents after they were authorized to access the Federal interstate
system.
Logging truck interstate access is already authorized in many
states. The Federal precedent has been established in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Mississippi, Maine, Vermont, North Carolina, and Michigan.
Identical language and legislation should extend Federal interstate
access to allow log trucks already operating on local, county and state
roads in each state as per their own criteria to utilize the Federal
interstate road system. The Safe Routes Act has been introduced in
Congress with Bipartisan support annually.
Additionally, the commercial trucking sector is experiencing severe
a driver shortage with a projected 60,000 commercial truck drivers
needed. This is even more pronounced within the log truck driving
category due to the unique aspects of hauling logs. Improving
transportation efficiency will enable the log trucking sector of the
timber industry to do more with less.
Action: Improving Transportation Safety and Efficiency
Congress must immediately pass the ``Safe Routes Act'' to
universally provide the authorization of each respective state to pass
legislation at the state level extending access to the Federal
interstate systems as per their current weight limits and criteria.
The Administration should issue an Executive Order
authorizing states to authorize commercial trucks currently
operating within their intrastate road system (non-Federal),
and at weights/configurations to extend operation of these
commercial vehicles to the Federal interstate system.
Incentivize commercial truck driver entry through refundable
tax credits of up to $7,500 for Class A Commercial Drivers
License (CDL) operators as per the bipartisan 2022
``Strengthening Supply Chains Through Truck Driver Incentives
Act.''
Renewable Fuel Standard
Issue: Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)
The Renewable Fuel Standard was established by the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 and expanded by the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 for the purpose of; reducing the country's reliance on foreign
oil; grow the renewable energy industry; and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. The program is implemented by the EPA in ``consultation''
with USDA and DOE.
There are four renewable fuel categories:
Biomass based diesel
Cellulosic biofuels
Advanced biofuel
Total renewable fuel
Within these categories there are five subcategories or silos
describing the various Renewable Index Numbers (RIN's) per specific
type of renewable fuel. The D3 and D7 RIN's are cellulosic based
produced from cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin. This would include
forest-based feedstock.
D3 and D7 cellulosic renewable fuels have never been commercially
produced and is confirmed by the EPA who have developed Cellulosic
Waiver Credits due to ``recognizing the short-term difficultly in
attaining required volumes of cellulosic standards.''
However, there are billions of dollars in investment prepared to
produce D3 and D7 cellulosic renewable fuels, including sustainable
aviation fuel (SAF) upon approval of project pathway applications. The
only obstacles are EPA's timely Pathway application response and
approval and overly restrictive ``interpretation'' of eligible forest-
based feedstock (contrary to USDA USFS consultation). There are
millions of tons of unmerchantable timber, biomass and hazardous fuels
available as feedstock for the production of D3 and D7 cellulosic
renewable fuels.
The USFS Wildfire Crisis Strategy recognizes the need to treat 50
million acres, including hazardous fuels that are feeding the
wildfires. The challenge is what to do with this otherwise
unmerchantable biomass. The answer is to use it as feedstock for
renewable fuels production.
The EPA's position on Pathway Application processing is to address
each application on a case-by-case basis. This creates uncertainty and
delays the collective processing of similar projects. Approval of the
known projects to produce cellulosic renewable fuels will compliment
the U.S. energy independence agenda and produce new and much needed
forest product markets.
Nearly 15 years ago the EPA recognized that electricity derived
from renewable biomass qualified as a renewable transportation fuel as
part of the 2010 RFS2 Rule, but the EPA has failed to comply with the
language in their own rule and activate the electric pathway. With the
emergence of electric vehicles, which represent 9% of vehicle market
share, the EPA's delay jeopardizes legally obligated revenue streams
and fiscal viability of these biomass electric generation facilities.
The EPA has failed to implement the full scope of the RFS as per
the Congressional Intent.
The EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ), Office of
Air and Radiation (OAR) does not have the background, understanding, or
expertise of forest-based cellulosic feedstock and forest management
practices to effectively administer or process the Pathway Applications
for D3 and D7 RIN's projects. EPA has not collectively deferred to
USDA/USFS expertise, advice, and direction regarding forest management
practices and timber source marketing/value.
Action: RFS Administration
The RFS program must be moved from OTAQ, OAR to the USDA/
USFS or other administration authority that is knowledgeable in
forest-based feedstock (biomass, hazardous fuels,
unmerchantable timber, cull wood, etc.) or headed by a
political appointee with a Memorandum of Understanding with the
USDA/USFS.
All Pathway Applications must be reviewed, processed and
approved/disapproved within ninety days of submission.
Recognize forest-based biomass as a renewable carbon neutral
feedstock for electrical power generation and renewable fuel
production, as practiced by the rest of the developed global
countries.
Include e-RIN's (renewable electricity generated from
forest-based renewable feedstock) as eligible for RIN credits.
This renewable energy displaces petroleum-based fuel and can be
traced to electric vehicle charging. Therefore, it accomplishes
the goals of the ``reducing the country's reliance on foreign
oil; grows the renewable energy industry (particularly
hazardous fuels identified in the Wildfire Crisis Strategy);
and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.'' These facilities can
address the projected demand for additional baseload
electricity to feed the grid more readily, cost-effectively,
and quickly than larger traditional power plants while
replacing the many coal power plants that are shutdown or
scheduled for shutdown.
Amend EPA's biomass definition in the proposed Renewable
Volume Obligations (RVO) rule pending issuance in March 2025 to
expand ``biomass obtained from certain areas at risk of
wildfire from 200 feet to 1.5 miles of buildings or other areas
regularly occupied by people, or of public infrastructure.''
Workforce Development
Issue: Workforce Development
The demographics of the timber industry workforce are well
documented to be aging, with over half 55+ years old (2017) and a
declining total workforce of 2% annually as referenced. Surveys of
existing logging businesses also revealed the majority were owned by
individuals 55 years or older. Many of their succession plans do not
include passing on the family business but instead closing the
business. This aging workforce and ownership is going to compound the
workforce shortage in the next 5-10 years.
Wage and Benefit Competitiveness
Seasonality
Profitability
Public Perception/Image
There has been trade school programs developed around the country;
however, they typically train small numbers (10-12 students) per
session.
Starting or maintaining a logging business is capital intensive
requiring millions of dollars in investment, with the profit margins of
1-3% for many companies, and significant risk and uncertainty. Most
logging companies do not have binding volume or price contracts with
mills that they do business with. Volumes and rates paid are commonly
reduced by the mills with a phone call, text, or letter with minimal
recourse from the logger.
Seasonal harvest windows have created operational restrictions that
render employment within the sector as seasonal. Maintaining a skilled
workforce in a seasonally limited environment is challenging and
undermines the employment sustainability within the logging workforce.
Coupled with long hours, harsh environment, and operational hazards
without commiserate compensation and benefits, these factors have a
negative impact in attracting young new workers into the industry.
Logging businesses are small family-owned multigenerational
agricultural businesses very similar to farming. In recognition of the
workforce structure and succession of farming businesses, farmers are
able to integrate their family members that are 16-17 years old in the
``mechanized'' operation of farming equipment to facilitate learning
the operations and for future succession.
Exemptions to the Hazardous Occupations (HO) Orders do not apply to
youth employed or operated by their parents. At age 16 minors can
perform any farm job, including those declared hazardous by the
Secretary of Labor. In other occupations minors are not allowed to
perform hazardous work until the age of 18. Ref. U.S. Department of
Labor
Loggers are not currently specifically permitted this exemption,
although the Department of Labor Child Labor Bulletin 102 states:
The Hazardous Occupations (HO) Orders for Agricultural
Employment, Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provides a minimum
age of 16 years for any agricultural occupations which the
Secretary of Labor finds and declares to be particularly
hazardous for persons under the age of 16. The Secretary of
Labor has found and declared that the following occupations are
hazardous for minors under 16 years of age: Felling, bucking,
skidding, loading or unloading timber with butt diameter of
more than 6"[.]
This could be interpreted to allow for ``logging operations'' to be
conducted by agricultural workers 16 years and older.
Note: Contrary to Bureau of Labor Statistics reporting (i.e.,
Logging Industry Most Dangerous Occupation), a review of all
injury and fatality reports found the reporting criteria is
skewed and misleading. The American Loggers Council met with
the Bureau of Labor Statistics in Washington DC to review their
data. That meeting revealed that the report of fatalities per
100,000 (98/100,000) employees was extrapolated since there are
only 40,000-50,000 loggers in the workforce and for the year
reviewed was actually 47 fatalities. Of those, 80% were non-
mechanized operations (i.e., chainsaws and hand-felling) and
some were log truck accidents. When adjusted for these factors,
actual mechanized logging operations fatalities would be
approximately ten per year or extrapolated to be \20/100000\--
comparable to the agricultural sector at \23/100000\, the
second highest fatality rate.
Action: Logging is Agriculture
The same opportunity for family members 16-17 years old to
operate ``mechanized'' logging equipment should be extended to
family logging businesses. The mechanization of the logging
industry is the single largest factor that has contributed to
improving safety. This legislation has been introduced with
bipartisan support into Congress for many years in the form of
the Future Logging Careers Act. This is the most readily
available pipeline for workforce entry and family business
succession.
Trade schools specializing in logging industry workforce
training should receive Federal support and investment to
provide cost free tuition to prospective students. Efforts to
recruit at risk, under-served demographics, including an
emphasis on rural and urban areas should be a targeted focus.
Employers hiring from these programs should receive an
``apprentice'' tax credit for the first year.
Taxes
Issue: Tax Burden Holding Back Investment
The Federal Excise Tax on heavy trucks was first enacted in 1917
(3%) to help pay for World War I and is the highest excise tax levied
by the Federal Government. Over the course of 100 years the tax was
repealed (1924), reinstated (1932 at 2% due to the depression),
increased in 1941 (2.5%) and 1941 (5%) during WWII, 1951 (8% due to the
Korean War), 1956 (10% for the formation of the National Interstate
Highway Program), 1972 scheduled to be reduced to 5%, but due to
ongoing interstate construction and overruns is maintained at 10%, 1975
Senate votes to repeal, but House does not, 1982 increased to 12% and
extended to present day.
This tax adds more than $30,000 to the cost of new trucks and
trailers. Off-highway equipment such as agriculture, earthmoving,
forestry and mining machinery are exempt from the tax. This tax is paid
at the time of sale on new trucks (not used since the excise tax has
already been levied when new), which consequently incentivizes the
purchase of used trucks over new trucks.
The Federal Excise Tax on new over the road trucks disincentivizes
purchasing new trucks that are safer, more efficient, and produce less
carbon emissions. Half of the Class 8 trucks on the road today are over
10 years old and lack the cleaner technologies and fuel efficiency
gains of today's new trucks.
The price of conventional diesel trucks ($150,000+) has increased
over 50% in 10 years, and the price of electric trucks ($250,000+) is
nearly double the price of a standard diesel truck. The Federal Excise
Tax is 12%. While the taxable value has increased significantly, the
Federal Excise Tax has remained the same, generating a disproportionate
amount of additional revenue at the expense of the consumer.
The timber industry provides the forest-based feedstock to biomass
power plants. These markets are critical to comprehensive forest
management operations and particularly the removal of hazardous fuels.
In the realm of the renewable energy environment (wind, solar, biomass)
60% of renewable energy consumed in the U.S. is derived from biomass
according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. However, the
biomass renewable energy sector is at risk of losing IRS tax code
sections 45Y and 48E production and investment tax credits in the
Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 due to a lack of guidance from the
Biden Administration. This creates an untenable uncertainty for
renewable biomass power facilities.
Action: Reduce Taxes to Support Economic Investment and Growth
Reduce or eliminate the Federal Excise Tax on Commercial
Trucks. This funding ($5 billion annually) has been included in
the Highway Trust Fund. The question is how to keep the Highway
Trust Fund whole with the elimination or reduction in this
revenue stream.
Considering the significant increase in truck and trailer
value over the past 10 years, a 50% reduction in the Federal
Excise Tax, from 12% to 6% would theoretically generate the
same revenue as 2013.
Another alternative would be to backfill the Federal Excise
Tax revenue with a 2.5 per gallon fuel tax. The U.S. consumes
135 billion gallons of gas annually and 45 billion gallons of
diesel fuel. A 2.5 per gallon tax will generate $4.5 billion
annually. This would allow for the full elimination of the
Federal Excise Tax.
Transferring the fee to the actual vehicles impacting the
Highway system upon annual registration is a simple alternative
that will capture all vehicles including electric vehicles.
With 283,000,000 private vehicles and three million commercial
trucks, a flat $20 per vehicle registration annually will fully
offset the $5 billion current Federal Excise Tax.
Regarding Clean Electricity Production and Investment Tax
Credits (Sections 45Y, 48E and 45Z) for Renewable Biomass Power
generating facilities, Congress and the Administration must
provide immediate clarity through the Department of Treasury
and the Internal Revenue Service of eligibility. The lack of
direction and certainty from the Biden Administration has left
the renewable biomass industry in a compromised position that
threatens the vital role these facilities represent in
renewable energy production, timber industry markets, forest
management and wildfire mitigation.
Disaster Assistance
Issue: Preserving Critical Infrastructure
Natural disasters impact the agricultural sector through floods,
hurricanes, droughts, infestations and wildfires. The USDA Federal Crop
Insurance Program protects agricultural producers from losses due to
natural disasters or price fluctuations.
Timber Is Agriculture. However, timber crops do not receive similar
protection. Loggers represent critical infrastructure and were deemed
essential during the Pandemic. The Pandemic Assistance for Harvesters
and Haulers (PATHH) provided funding ($200 million) to offset the
financial losses during this period.
Due to recent hurricanes, drought and beetle infestations $1.6
billion is being considered to provide assistance to private timberland
owners to recover from losses associated with natural disasters.
Preserving private timberlands and the service contractor
infrastructure is necessary to support the entire forest products
industry. Assistance programs in response (after the fact) to natural
and economic disasters do not provide certainty, encourage investment,
nor provide timely assistance. The need for these assurances for other
agricultural sectors is recognized and available. Establishing standing
programs for the timber industry will provide parity and protection
that other agriculture commodities receive.
Action
Pass the bipartisan Loggers Economic Assistance and Relief
Act that has been introduced in the House and Senate.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Gifford Pinchot famously wrote in Breaking
New Ground, ``Forestry is Tree Farming.
Forestry is handling trees so that one crop
follows another. To grow trees as a crop is
Forestry.''
The father of forestry and the first Chief of
the U.S. Forest Service
Contact
Scott Dane, Executive Director,
[email protected], 202-627-6961
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
``First and foremost, you can never afford to forget for one
moment what is the object of the forest policy. Primarily that
object is not to preserve forests because they are beautiful--
though that is good in itself--not to preserve them because
they are refuges for the wild creatures of the wilderness--
though that too is good in itself--but the primary objective of
the forest policy as of the land policy of the United States,
is the making of prosperous homemaking of our country. Every
other consideration comes as secondary. The whole effort of the
government in dealing with the forests must be directed to this
end.''
Theodore Roosevelt 1903
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Dane. Appreciate your
testimony.
We will now go to our next witness Carrie Monohan, who is
the Director of Natural Resources at the Mooretown Rancheria of
Maidu Indians in northern California. You have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CARRIE MONOHAN, Ph.D., DIRECTOR OF
NATURAL RESOURCES, MOORETOWN RANCHERIA OF MAIDU
INDIANS, OROVILLE, CA
Dr. Monohan. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, Chairman
LaMalfa, Ranking Member Salinas, and other Subcommittee
Members, for the opportunity to speak here today.
As you recognized in your remarks, we face a nationwide
forest health crisis, and in the West, fires are the number one
public safety, forest health, and environmental concern.
Healthy forests are critical to the environment and to the
economy, to rural communities and to Tribes. Tribal
governments, like Mooretown Rancheria, a federally-recognized
Tribe in northern California, can be a force multiplier to
address this crisis, and we are already doing so through an
innovative model using the Service First authority.
Committee Members likely recall the Camp Fire, which
destroyed the Town of Paradise and took 85 lives in 2018. But
since that time, we have also faced the 320,000 acre North
Complex fire, the million acre Dixie Fire, and just last year,
the Park Fire. Our community is ground zero of the National
Forest health crisis, and while we have cultural and economic
purposes for our forest management efforts, it is also a matter
of necessity. I am here today to tell you about the Service
First model, which can be used to rapidly address forest
management needs across the nation without requiring new
legislation or regulatory changes. At the same time, using
Service First with Tribes can support Tribal economic
development and bring to bear the skills and knowledge of those
who have managed our forest for thousands of years.
Under the Service First model, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
and the Forest Service enter into an interagency agreement,
including Mooretown as an implementing partner. Forest Service
funds are transferred to the Interior, then to a trust account
held on the Tribe's behalf, and as work is completed, the Tribe
is reimbursed for expenses incurred. It is important to note
that Mooretown does not just work on our reservation and does
not just work on the aboriginal territories of the Tribe, but
that we provide forest management anywhere it is needed. For
example, when Congress appropriated wildfire crisis funding,
that funding was directed to National Forests designated as
wildfire crisis landscapes. A number of National Forests in
California and Nevada initiated interagency agreements with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs and Mooretown to fund fuels reduction
and ecosystem-enhancement projects. This included removing
hazard trees, creating fuel breaks in the wildland-urban
interface, and road repair to restore access.
Our crews are working as I speak on fuels reduction
projects under those agreements, using both hand crews and a
fleet of large equipment like masticators and log processors.
However, we have experienced some challenges in working with
the Forest Service under this model. We found that Forest
Service personnel can be hesitant to use new tools like the
Service First model unless they already have done so
previously. We have found that capacity challenges in some of
the districts have actually precluded them from approving
projects supported by outside grant funding. Even when funding
is available, environmental review complete, and we have an
existing interagency agreement, we rely on Forest Service
personnel to prepare scopes of work. We found that remaining
staff often have not been trained to develop these key planning
materials, and we have seen an exodus of older, experienced
personnel.
To address many of these challenges, we have hired retired
Forest Service employees, who can write the scopes of work and
that are from the districts we work in, know what work is ready
to proceed, and can coordinate with remaining Forest Service
staff to help them use existing agreements and create new ones.
In addition, we have had preliminary discussions with Forest
Service leadership about developing training to ensure
personnel are familiar with the Service First model and know
its advantages. We are fighting a war on catastrophic wildfire,
and we are trying to get ahead of it with basic forestry
practices while recovering from decades of forest mismanagement
in an era where the Forest Service is reeling from major
personnel reductions. In summary, Mooretown forestry has
demonstrated that Tribes using interagency agreements with the
BIA and Forest Service is the most efficient means of deploying
forest management funding, and it is working. Looking forward,
we hope that the Committee will support more widespread
adoption of the Service First model, help us secure training
for Forest Service personnel, and, when appropriating forest
management and wildfire crisis funding, recognize that Service
First is the most efficient means of getting projects underway.
Finally, I would like to close by thanking Chairman LaMalfa
for his long-term support of the Tribe and our forestry
program, and Chairman Thompson and Chairman LaMalfa for
visiting us in northern California to view the impacts of
wildfire firsthand, and for inviting the Tribe here today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Monohan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carrie Monohan, Ph.D., Director of Natural
Resources, Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians, Oroville, CA
Chairman LaMalfa, Ranking Member Salinas, thank you for the
opportunity to address the Subcommittee. As you recognized in your
remarks, we face a nationwide forest health crisis and in the West
fires are the number one public safety, forest health, and
environmental concern. Healthy forests are critical to the environment
and the economy, to rural communities and Tribes. Tribal governments
like Mooretown Rancheria, a federally recognized Tribe in northern
California, can be a force multiplier to address this crisis, and we
are already doing so through an innovative model using the Service
First authority.
Mooretown Rancheria is located in Bute County, California. The
Maidu peoples' ancestral lands stretch from Mount Lassen in the North
to the Yuba River in the South, from the Sacramento River in the West
over the crest of the Sierra Nevada Mountains to Honey Lake in the
East. Within these lands are three National Forests and a National
Park, along with several state parks and other public lands.
Mooretown's members historically worked largely in California's forest
products industry and many lived in the town of Feather Falls, until it
was destroyed by wildfire in 2020. Today Mooretown has a small
reservation near the City of Oroville, though we also manage nearby
Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands through co-
management and co-stewardship agreements.
Subcommittee Members likely recall the Camp Fire, which destroyed
the Town of Paradise and took 85 lives in 2018, but since that time we
have also faced the 320,000 acre North Complex fire, which killed 15
and destroyed 2,500 structures; the million acre Dixie Fire, the
largest fire in California history; and, just last year, the 430,000
acre Park Fire, the fourth-largest in California history. Our community
is ground zero of the National Forest health crisis, and while we have
cultural and economic purposes for our forest management efforts, it is
also a mater of necessity.
I am here today to tell you about our use of the Service First
authority to provide forest management for the U.S. Forest Service
(``USFS'') as a federally recognized Tribe, allowing us to deploy funds
appropriated by Congress in a timely manner, often within weeks, and
respond to this crisis at the pace and scale that it requires. The
Service First model can be used to rapidly address hazardous conditions
and other forest management needs across the nation, without requiring
new legislation or regulatory changes. At the same time, using Service
First with Tribes can support Tribal economic development and bring to
bear the skills and knowledge of those who have managed our forests for
thousands of years.
We participate in Interagency Agreements between the USFS and
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) through Service First Authority, which
enables USDA and the Interior Department to share Federal resources to
efficiently complete projects. Without the Bureau of Indian Affairs'
California Central Forestry Department, a critical partner, we would
not be able to conduct thousands of acres of fuels reduction for the
Forest Service as we have every year since 2017.
Under this Service First model, BIA and USFS enter into an
Interagency Agreement including Mooretown as an implementing partner;
USFS funds are transferred to Interior, then to a trust account held on
the Tribe's behalf; finally, we begin project implementation and are
reimbursed as we submit expenses to BIA for work completed. The process
allows us to initiate work as soon as funds are placed in our trust
account, while maintaining strict Federal accounting and reporting
requirements.
It's important to note that Mooretown does not just work on our
reservation and the aboriginal territories of the Tribe, but that we
provide forest management anywhere it is needed. For example, when
Congress appropriated Wildfire Crisis funding, that funding was
directed to the many National Forests designated as Wildfire Crisis
Landscapes. A number of National Forests in California and Nevada
initiated Interagency Agreements with the BIA and Mooretown to fund
forest fuels and ecosystem enhancement projects; this included removing
hazard trees, creating fuel breaks in the wildland-urban interface, and
road repair to restore public and management access. Our Tribal member-
led crews are working as I speak on fuels reduction projects under
these agreements, using both hand crews and a fleet of large equipment
like masticators and log processors. When the Tribe conducts work
outside of its ancestral lands, we partner with local Tribes to train
and employ their members, helping them build capacity to take on their
own projects in the future.
Through this Service First model, the Tribe has partnered with BIA
and other Federal agencies to conduct nearly $40 million of forest
treatments since Mooretown Forestry Contract Services began operating.
We have completed over 10,000 acres of fuels reduction, cleared
hundreds of miles of roads of post-fire hazards, and built fuel breaks
to make communities safer and our forests healthier.
We could not do this work without our partners at BIA Forestry, who
serve a critical role in developing agreements, processing funding, and
coordinating with USFS. We are also grateful for the many USFS
personnel who recognize the unique benefits the Service First model
provides, and who have energetically worked with us to deploy our teams
wherever they can be most effective.
The Tribe does use other types of agreements, including a Master
Service Agreement with Plumas National Forest, our closest partner, and
hopes to enter Good Neighbor Authority to allow us to more efficiently
and quickly move forest products, including timber, off the landscape.
We are grateful for the Committee's efforts to address Good Neighbor
Authority and are hopeful that the Fix Our Forests Act is enacted this
year.
However, we have experienced some challenges in working with USFS
under the Service First model:
We've found that USFS personnel can be hesitant to use new
tools like our Service First model unless they have already
done so previously. At times funding transfers have been
delayed because of a disconnect between USFS field staff, who
understand our model, and grants and agreements staff, who may
not have experience with it.
Capacity challenges in some USFS districts have actually
precluded them from approving projects supported by outside
grant funding, preventing valuable work which does not rely on
Federal funding.
Even when funding is available, environmental review is
complete, and we have an existing Interagency Agreement, we
must rely upon USFS personnel to prepare a scope of work.
Younger staff often haven't been trained to develop these key
planning materials, and we've seen an exodus of older,
experienced personnel.
At times we've also been told we should work directly with
USFS, rather than use the Service First model with BIA
participation. Service First is often superior to other
agreement types because it is less cumbersome, faster, and does
not require the Tribe to sign a limited waiver of sovereign
immunity.
To address many of these challenges, and to stop the bleeding, we
have hired retired USFS personnel who can write scopes of work, and
that are from the districts we work in, know what work is ready to
proceed, and can coordinate with remaining USFS staff to help them use
existing agreements and create new ones.
We have had preliminary discussions with USFS leadership about
developing training to ensure personnel are familiar with the Service
First model and know its advantages. I am hopeful that the Committee
will support this effort, and appreciate Chief Schultz's willingness to
discuss this concern with us.
The Tribe is also working to develop an overarching MOU with the
BIA to provide a firm structure to the Service First model, in part to
reassure USFS personnel of the process and also to make our
interactions with both agencies more predictable, routine, and durable.
We are fighting a war on catastrophic wildfire and we are trying to
get ahead of it with basic forestry practices, while recovering from
decades of forest mismanagement in an era where the Forest Service is
reeling from major personnel reductions. In our region, that
mismanagement began with the onslaught of the California Gold Rush and
resulted in mass genocide and displacement of the communities that had
managed the forests for millennia. The Tribe truly believes that if we
take care of the Forests, they will take care of us; that rural
communities are in need of wildfire protection; that watersheds are
need forest management to protect water supplies for humans and
wildlife; and, that key habitats hang on a razor's edge, vulnerable to
being wiped out by a single fire.
In summary, Mooretown Forestry has demonstrated that Tribes using
Interagency Agreements with the BIA and USFS are the fastest means of
deploying forest management funding, and certainly faster than using
nonprofit partners that rely upon the same laborious contracting
requirements as the USFS. Mooretown can and does just get out there and
do the work.
We are honored to come here to tell you that the Service First
model of working with BIA and USFS using Interagency Agreements is
working. We are proud of how much we have done, but recognize how much
more work is needed. Looking forward, we hope that the Committee will
support more widespread adoption of the Service First model, help us
secure training for USFS personnel, and, when appropriating forest
management and wildfire crisis funding, recognize that Service First is
the fastest means of getting projects underway.
Finally, I would like to close by thanking Chairman LaMalfa for his
long-term support of the Tribe and our Forestry program, and Chairman
Thompson for visiting us in northern California, viewing the impacts of
wildfire firsthand, and inviting the Tribe here today to testify.
The Chairman. Thanks again, Dr. Monohan. Appreciate your
testimony, and we will listen to our final witness, Dr. Thomas
DeLuca, the Dean of the College of Forestry at Oregon State
University. You have 5 minutes. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS H., DeLUCA, Ph.D., DEAN, COLLEGE OF
FORESTRY, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY; DIRECTOR, OREGON
FOREST RESEARCH LABORATORY, OSU, CORVALLIS, OR
Dr. DeLuca. Chairman LaMalfa, Ranking Member Salinas, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. My name is Tom DeLuca. I serve as the Dean of
the College of Forestry at Oregon State University.
Decades of timber harvest and fire suppression on Federal
forestlands, followed by a precipitous decline in active
management starting in the 1980s, resulted in a large portion
of Federal forests being dangerously overstocked, vulnerable to
insects and disease, and at high risk of high-severity
wildfires. I applaud meaningful actions that can accelerate and
increase science-informed forest management to improve forest
health and resilience. The current Administration has
prioritized action on Federal forestlands. There are, however,
key challenges that put the potential for success at risk. I
encourage this Committee to consider the following: can the
Federal Government effectively achieve the desired management
outcomes while reducing Federal workforce and research
capacity? Second, given that we are far behind in addressing
the Federal forests' condition, it is imperative that we focus
precisely on where work needs to be done.
For the greatest potential for success, I offer three
points for your consideration. First, Federal reductions in
force and restructuring proposals undermine our collective
ability to ramp up localized active management. Secretary
Rollins issued a memorandum on July 24 to propose
reorganization plans for the U.S. Forest Service to centralize
personnel and resources in regional hubs. While this may offer
administrative efficiencies, this action risks undermining the
foundation of effective natural resource management by losing
local knowledge and partnerships, trust, and ecological
specificity that is critical to effective natural resource
management. Workforce reductions initiated earlier this year
are already constraining Federal capacity. The agency's
research and development arm has dropped by about 25 percent,
or nearly 400 permanent employees, since 2024. Over the same
period, the Pacific Northwest Research Station, co-located on
OSU's Corvallis campus, staff has declined by 60 positions, or
24 percent. These rapid reductions act to destabilize the
agency being tasked with advancing enhanced management on our
National Forests.
Second, U.S. Forest Service research enterprise reductions
hinder science-informed management practices to support forest
health and productivity. Our forests face ever-evolving
threats, such as increasingly hot, dry conditions, novel
insects and pathogens, and exotic plants. Science must be done
to evolve with these novel threats. The U.S. Forest Service
plays a critical role in advancing and translating science for
active management to address these complex challenges. Equally
important is the role of the U.S. Forest Service's Experimental
Forest Network. Long-term ecological data collection at sites,
such as the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest in Oregon, have
provided irreplaceable insights into how forests function for
more than 75 years. No other government agency or industry
outside of the U.S. Forest Service is positioned to replace
those losses in scientific work currently advanced by the
agency.
Third and final, rescinding the Roadless Rule distracts
from the priority management activities that improve forest
health and resilience. The Roadless Rule restricts new road
construction on approximately 58 of the 193 million acres of
National Forest lands. Most of the acres in roadless areas are
steep, remote, and costly to access for timber harvest.
Historically, roads were built where it was most economically
viable to harvest and haul timber. This remains true today, and
the distance from un-roaded lands to active mills is even
further today due to the large number of mill closures over the
last 30 years. Rescinding the Roadless Rule won't mitigate
wildfire risk, which is based on three factors: the likelihood
that a wildfire will happen in a given place, the potential
severity of a fire when it occurs, and the values at risk. The
highest priority for reducing wildfire risk is in the wildland-
urban interface where people, property, and infrastructure are
exposed.
In conclusion, after decades of intensive use followed by
prolonged inaction, our forests face unprecedented stress from
wildfire, insects, and disease and drought. We must implement
proactive management at a meaningful scale, informed by robust
science, and supported by a prepared workforce and regional
infrastructure. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. DeLuca follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas H., DeLuca, Ph.D., Dean, College of
Forestry, Oregon State University; Director, Oregon Forest Research
Laboratory, OSU, Corvallis, OR
Chairman LaMalfa, Vice Chair Moore, Ranking Member Salinas, Vice
Ranking Member Riley, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify today on the role of active management in
promoting forest health, including wildfire resilience, and on the
potential for National Forestlands to contribute to additional domestic
timber production. My name is Thomas DeLuca; I serve as Dean of the
College of Forestry at Oregon State University (OSU).
The U.S. Forest Service stewards approximately 193 million acres of
National Forest System lands. Following direction from Executive Order
14225, Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production (signed March
1, 2025), USDA Secretary Rollins issued a memo \1\ designating 112
million acres--approximately 60% of the system--as an ``emergency
situation'' to expedite active management and timber production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sm-1078-
006.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I fully agree with the position that the pace and scale of active
management on these lands must increase. Our federally managed
forestlands look much different today than they would have when
European settlers first arrived. Much of today's National Forests, with
the exception of lands that have been under long-term protection (such
as National Parks and designated Wilderness areas) have been harvested,
densely planted and managed primarily for timber production for
decades. However, major reductions in active management starting in the
1980s, combined with deferred maintenance of roads and firebreaks as
well as the exclusion of fire and of Indigenous stewardship on these
landscapes, have resulted in many forests being dangerously
overstocked, vulnerable to insects and disease, and at risk of high-
intensity wildfires. Active, science-informed management is essential
for restoring resilience and productivity to these forests.
I applaud meaningful policy and actions that can accelerate and
increase science-informed management, but we face a key challenge I
respectfully encourage this Committee to further consider: Can the
Federal Government effectively achieve the active management outcomes
needed on the collective of Federal forestlands while simultaneously
implementing proposed USDA plans to reduce the workforce and research
capacity needed to support this work?
There is a clear and present opportunity to increase timber
production on previously managed forestlands and in the process restore
forest health and fire resiliency. To restore forest health, reduce
wildfire risk, and support a sustainable domestic timber supply, the
strategy must be grounded in science and paired with investments in
workforce, local capacity, and partnerships. The Forest Service cannot
deliver science-based, regionally tailored management without people
and resources to plan, implement, and monitor projects at scale. With
this in mind, I share three key points for your consideration.
1. Federal Reductions in Force and Restructuring Proposals Undermine
Ability To Ramp Up Localized Active Management
Secretary Rollins issued a memorandum \2\ on July 24 to propose
reorganization plans for the Department of Agriculture and the U.S.
Forest Service. This proposal outlined key goals, including
streamlining agency processes, removing barriers to success, and
enhancing the ability of Federal employees to interface with their
constituents. The USDA reorganization plan to centralize personnel and
resources in regional hubs may offer administrative efficiencies;
however, this action risks undermining the foundation of effective
natural resource management by losing local knowledge and partnerships,
trust, and ecological specificity that are critical to natural resource
management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/07/24/
secretary-rollins-announces-usda-reorganization-restoring-departments-
core-mission-supporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Workforce reductions are already constraining Federal capacity.
Although the total number of staff departures is difficult to
determine, a July Reuters investigation reported that as many as 5,000
USFS employees--or 15% of the workforce--left the agency in the last 5
months.\3\ This is a rapid and destabilizing loss for the agency that
is now tasked with ramping up management efforts across the nation's
forests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-wildfires-rage-
trump-staff-cuts-force-firefighters-clean-toilets-critics-say-2025-07-
21/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cuts that have occurred across Federal agencies supporting
forestry and natural resource management have disproportionately fallen
on early-career staff, often during probationary periods, as well as
veteran employees with legacy knowledge nearing retirement. The
reduction in both cohorts simultaneously creates not only a significant
gap in knowledge transfer within the agencies, but a missed opportunity
to onboard young professionals trained in the latest science and
management approaches.
Likewise, for forestry and natural resources graduates entering the
workforce, the opportunities to contribute the latest scientific
knowledge and best practice to the field are dwindling, despite the
need for their expertise increasing. Anecdotally, in Oregon State
University's job posting system for students, the USDA Forest Service
posted more than 270 full-time, seasonal, and internship opportunities
for OSU students during the 2023-24 academic year. For the 2024-25
academic year, the agency posted only 13. The impact of the loss of
these internship opportunities is still being assessed, but at a
minimum they represent a significant loss in opportunities for students
in forestry and the natural resources.
The USDA reorganization proposal also includes moving from
regionally located scientists and local field managers in favor of a
centralized USFS research and development office in Fort Collins,
Colorado. While this may be administratively efficient, it risks
ignoring the ecological complexity of distinct forest types across the
country. Co-location of regional offices where forest management
activities take place fosters collaboration, accelerates innovation,
and supports the training of the next generation of scientists and land
managers. These partnerships are often rooted in shared landscapes and
mutual investment in local outcomes--something that is difficult to
replicate from a distant hub.
2. USFS Research Enterprise Reductions Hinder Science-Informed
Management Practices To Support Forest Health and Productivity
Second, and closely related to overall USFS workforce reductions in
regional field staff, are the implications for the U.S. Forest Service
Research Enterprise. Colleagues at the USFS report that headcount in
the agency's research and development arm has dropped 25 percent--
nearly 400 permanent employees--since 2024. At the Pacific Northwest
Research Station specifically, which is co-located at Oregon State
University's Corvallis campus, staff declined by 60 positions, or 24
percent, over the same period. Although Congress has allocated funds
for additional R&D staff, hiring freezes prevent the agency from
filling these critical roles.
The USFS research enterprise plays a critical role in advancing
American forestry. Its synergy with universities ensures that science
is regionally focused, grounded in local eco-regions, and responsive to
the needs of forest-dependent communities. The proposal to further
reduce headcounts and centralize USFS staff in Fort Collins, Colorado,
risks further weakening the ties that sustain joint research, student
mentorship, and rapid knowledge exchange between the agency and
universities such as Oregon State University on a local and regional
scale.
We cannot manage today's forests without science-based practices
that are continuously updated based on ever-evolving threats to our
forests, including increasingly hot, dry conditions, novel insects and
pathogens, and exotic plants to name a few. For decades, many Federal
forestlands were intensively managed, followed by decades of minimal
management. The resulting landscapes are primed for disease, insect
outbreaks, drought stress, and catastrophic wildfire.
Rather than creating efficiencies or improving the ability to
readily adapt to changing conditions, centralization would raise costs
and reduce opportunities for field-based science--science that is
essential to effective forest management, timber production, wildfire
risk reduction, and long-term forest health. Research conducted by OSU
and the USFS Pacific Northwest Research Station, for instance,
demonstrates that carefully applied thinning and the reintroduction of
prescribed fire can restore resiliency to these forests. Innovations in
wildfire risk reduction, wood utilization, and forest management
technologies continue to grow through such collaborative partnerships.
Equally important is the role of the USFS experimental forest
network. Long-term ecological data collection at sites such as the H.J.
Andrews Experimental Forest have provided irreplaceable insights into
how forests function for more than 75 years. The H.J. Andrews leverages
approximately three times the money invested by the USFS, including
from OSU, to support this work. No other government agency or industry
outside of the USFS is positioned or has the incentives to support the
scientific work currently advanced by USFS and the associated knowledge
generation that supports forestry on both public and private lands.
Interruptions to these datasets would represent permanent losses to our
collective understanding of forest ecosystems.
Centralization would also reduce opportunities for the local
collaborations that make science actionable--partnerships with Tribes,
state agencies, industry, and communities--as well as limit training
opportunities for graduate students and the next generation of forest
stewards. While virtual tools can help, they cannot replace the value
of shared landscapes and on-the-ground collaboration. Over time, this
shift would narrow perspective, slow innovation, and weaken the
scientific foundation for National Forest policy.
It is also essential to recognize that forest management challenges
differ greatly by region. The nation's strongest concentrations of
forestry capacity are in the Pacific Northwest and the Southeast.
Centralizing USFS R&D in a single hub ignores this reality and risks
one-size-fits-all solutions that fail to account for ecological
diversity and regional economies.
Finally, not all forest management is fuels management. Practices
must be grounded in science and legal frameworks to balance ecological,
economic, and social goals. Federal and state governments, Tribes,
universities, communities, nonprofits, and industry all offer tools,
knowledge, and partnerships to adopt more active and sustainable forest
management. But this requires that the USFS research enterprise remain
robust, well-resourced, and regionally engaged. Without that, our
ability to expand active management at scale--and do it responsibly--
will be compromised.
3. Rescinding the Roadless Rule Distracts from Priority Management
Activities that Improve Forest Health and Resilience
There is a large body of research to strongly support the urgent
need to expand active management to restore forest health and reduce
wildfire risk, and I again applaud efforts to accelerate this work. But
using wildfire mitigation as the justification to rescind the 2001
Roadless Rule is a distraction from where treatments are most urgently
needed.
The Roadless Rule restricts new road construction on approximately
58 million acres of the 193 million acres of National Forest lands.
Removal of protections in these roadless areas has been proposed with
the goal, as stated by Secretary Rollins in an Aug. 27 press
release,\4\ to ``properly manage our Federal lands to create healthy,
resilient, and productive forests for generations to come,'' with a
particular concern for wildfire mitigation and timber production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/08/27/
secretary-rollins-opens-next-step-roadless-rule-rescission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rescinding the Roadless Rule risks diverting resources away from
urgent priorities, which include restoring resilience where people,
homes, communities, economies, and ecosystems are most vulnerable.
While there may be some benefit to both wildfire mitigation and
timber supply by accessing roadless areas, the costs far outweigh the
benefits from both an environmental and economic perspective. Most of
these acres are steep, remote, and costly to access for timber harvest.
Historically, roads were built where it was economically viable to
harvest and haul timber and areas left without roads were often too
costly or impractical to develop. This remains true today. And, if
anything, the distance from un-roaded lands to active mills is further
today due to the large number of mill closures over the last 30 years.
Rescinding the rule also won't significantly mitigate wildfire
risk. Wildfire risk is based on three factors: the likelihood that a
wildfire will happen in a specific place, the potential intensity of a
fire when it does happen, and the values at risk. The highest priority
for reducing wildfire risk is the wildland-urban interface, where
people, property, and infrastructure are most exposed. Fuels treatments
near communities, watersheds, and critical habitats provide the
greatest benefit. By contrast, dedicating scarce resources to build
roads into steep backcountry for timber and fire suppression diverts
attention from where it matters most (Downing, et al. 2022).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs_journals/2022/
rmrs_2022_downing_w001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is supported by scientific research indicating that wilderness
and inventoried roadless areas experience fewer ignitions than roaded
``front-country'' areas, where human-caused fires dominate. According
to a recent study, 84% of ignitions nationally are human-caused, and
they overwhelmingly occur where roads already exist (Balch, et al.
2017).\6\ While roads can improve suppression access, they also
increase ignition risk, facilitate invasive species spread, and
fragment habitat. (Johnston, et al. 2021).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/pdfs/
BalchPNAS-2017.pdf.
\7\ https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac13ee/
pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The health and resilience of our nation's forests depend on active,
science-informed management. After decades of both intensive use and
prolonged inaction, our forests face unprecedented stress from
wildfire, insects, disease, and drought. To mitigate, we must implement
proactive management at a meaningful scale.
The need to increase pace and scale has been acknowledged across
multiple Administrations, on both sides of the aisle, and I commend
this Administration for prioritizing the health and resiliency of
Federal forestlands. If policy directives alone could achieve this,
however, it would have been done by now. Real progress demands
investment in the people, science, and infrastructure that make
management possible. That means sustaining a skilled Federal workforce,
supporting the U.S. Forest Service research enterprise and enabling
collaboration with research institutions and other partners. It also
means ensuring sufficient regional milling capacity and innovative wood
products like cross-laminated timber (``CLT''), other mass timber
components, and composites to process and use material removed through
restoration and fuels reduction treatments. Without these, even the
best policy goals cannot be met.
I also want to recognize and commend the Administration for
advancing programs like the Joint Chiefs' Landscape Restoration
Partnership. One of the recently funded projects--the Oregon-Hood River
Wildfire & Watershed Project,\8\ in which Oregon State University's
Extension Fire Program is a partner--is a model for how Federal
investment can align with local expertise to achieve real results. By
bringing agencies, research institutions, and communities together,
this project will reduce wildfire risk, protect watersheds, and
strengthen community resilience. This is exactly the kind of science-
based, collaborative work we should be expanding nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/joint-chiefs-
landscape-restoration-partnership/summary-of-fy25-selected-joint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By contrast, cuts to staffing, proposed consolidation of regional
offices and research efforts, and distractions such as revisiting the
Roadless Rule will not help us reach these goals. They will hinder
progress at the very moment we need to accelerate it. We should be
focusing instead on scaling treatments in priority landscapes,
expanding partnerships with Tribes, states, and communities, and
building on the innovations that universities and the Forest Service
have already developed together.
If we are serious about restoring forest health, reducing wildfire
risk, and supporting rural economies, we must invest in capacity--this
includes people, businesses, and resilient communities--not reduce it.
By pairing active management with robust science, a prepared workforce,
and regional infrastructure, we can truly help ``properly manage our
Federal lands to create healthy, resilient, and productive forests for
generations to come,'' as Secretary Rollins and the Administration have
stated.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. DeLuca. We will now go to
Member questions, and I will recognize first, Ranking Member
Salinas.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you Chairman LaMalfa. So, let's just
dive right in. Dr. DeLuca, your testimony gave us some valuable
insight and overview of the importance and impacts of
partnerships between universities, like Oregon State and the
Forest Service, in advancing research and skilled workforce
development. Can you share and dive in a little deeper on some
examples of research and/or projects of the College of Forestry
that you might be working on with the Forest Service right now,
and how do these projects help inform Federal land management?
Dr. DeLuca. Yes. We work directly with the Forest Service
on innumerable projects. Some that are particularly of
relevance to this Committee would be on the Wildfire and Water
Security Research Project, which deals with looking at the
effect of wildfire on municipal drinking water quality and
availability. And that work was a joint project between U.S.
Forest Service and several universities, including Oregon State
University. That project was actually rescinded just recently,
but it is an example of the type of work we are doing together.
We also have the extensive work on the H.J. Andrews
Experimental Forest. It is the longest-standing, long-term
ecological research site in the nation, and it is a
collaboration between U.S. Forest Service and Oregon State
University, and in that site, it has burned three times in the
last 4 years. We have had fires on that site three times in the
last 4 years, which opens up incredible opportunities for
studying wildfire recovery and restoration, and those are
projects that are being initiated on the forests today. I would
go on, but I want to be--I recognize time limitations.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you, and I would imagine that the
information and the research that you are gathering actually
helps inform policies then on the ground and for the Federal
Government to figure out which direction to take and be most
efficient and less wasteful.
Dr. DeLuca. Yes, absolutely. I think research is
exceptionally important and having science-informed policy,
policy that incorporates unbiased information, that is built
out of not just individual studies, but a corpus of data that
is collected over tens of years. And especially in a field such
as forestry, that long-term science is exceptionally important,
and that is where programs, such as the Experimental Forest
Network within the U.S. Forest Service, is so important because
it provides that continual data collection over the lifecycle
of forests and rotations.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. The Trump Administration has cited
improving fire prevention efforts as a justification for
rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule, claiming that the decision
will reduce the risk of wildfire--I mentioned this in my
opening statement--but research also shows that human activity
is the leading cause of fire. In fact, according to the Forest
Service's own data, humans cause upwards of 85 percent of
wildfire fires. Further, a study from the Wilderness Society
found that fire ignition density rates are highest within 50
meters of roads. So, again to Dr. DeLuca, what does the
scientific literature say about roadless area and fire risk,
and do you see rescission of the Roadless Rule as a meaningful
step toward improving our fire preparedness and response?
Dr. DeLuca. Yes. We know that in areas where humans are
present, we have more fire ignitions. We also, of course, have
lightning fire ignitions or natural ignitions, but humans
greatly increase the number of ignitions that occur on the
landscape. So, once you build roads into areas, you increase
access and you increase the potential ignitions. Whether those
fires erupt into full-scale wildfires is dependent on whether
there are conditions that are conducive to that fire erupting.
However, the roadless area and the existing designated
wilderness areas are areas that were not managed heavily in the
past because of the lack of roading and have the lower
densities, stand densities, than those areas that were managed
and then not managed. Those areas, you open the stand up, and
you have higher density. And so, following--especially with the
combination of no management combined with active fire
suppression increases the severity of fires that occur in that
area. And, of course, those areas are closer to where
communities exist, and that is where the effort to reduce fuels
should be prioritized at this stage.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Salinas. I will now
recognize our Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Thompson from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Thanks again
for the witnesses for being here. In many forests, including my
National Forest, Allegheny National Forest, which I represent,
we have significant challenges with invasive species. Ms.
Barnes, can you speak to the role that state forestry agencies
play with combating these invasives that undermine forest
health?
Ms. Barnes. Yes. So, invasive species is something we take
very seriously, and trying to combat those and eradicate those
on the landscape is something that should be done. These can
add fuel to the fire and growth to fires and actually lead to
catastrophic wildfires in the communities, so working to
control those, to eradicate those. In our fuels program, we
work to provide projects that can help to reduce those and
restore native vegetation in the landscape, which is a very,
very important component to reducing the risk of catastrophic
wildfire.
Mr. Thompson. Yes, and I really appreciate the role the
partnership between USDA and our state agencies. That teamwork
really does make a difference for us. In Pennsylvania, we don't
have massive wildfires, but we have small ones, pretty easily
managed, but it is the invasives that do the damage in the
Allegheny National Forest.
Ms. Barnes, in your testimony, you mentioned support for
the so-called Cottonwood fix, which was included in the Farm,
Food, and National Security Act of 2024, and due to the
Cottonwood decision 2015, the Forest Service is required to re-
initiate consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service on
completed forest plans when a new species is listed under the
Endangered Species Act, or new information is brought forward.
Now, Forest Service Chiefs, both under Republican and
Democratic Administrations, have said that further consultation
isn't necessary as it would require more than 100 forest plans
to be revised, costing taxpayer dollars and agency staff time
but with no real benefits. A partial fix was provided by
Congress in 2018 but expired in 2023. Do you have any further
comment on Cottonwood and why we need to fix it once and for
all?
Ms. Barnes. Yes. I would just say that this is an important
thing to look at. I think fixing this would be helpful, also
looking at the forest action plans and how they address that.
This is an avenue that is a strategic plan for the forests, but
paying special attention on how we can streamline matters, how
we can make permanent fixes for something is something that we
are always looking for, and ways to get things done in a more
streamlined and better process.
Mr. Thompson. Very good, and then just one final question.
In 2014, I had the privilege of chairing the Conservation,
Energy, and Forestry Subcommittee that included some other
jurisdictions and then--and then the bill in 2018 all provided
some categorical exemptions, some tools to the U.S. Forest
Service. So, I will open this up to the whole panel: is there
anything that comes to mind of new tools that we need to equip
the U.S. Forest Service with so they can do their job of
managing the forest in a healthy way? And I measure health
environmentally by the health of the forest through active
management, tempering, replanting to the environment, and,
quite frankly, through the economies for the municipalities
that we are struggling right now to get Secure Rural Schools
reauthorized, which is a crime. I mean, I understand out West,
there are schools that have closed because the Secure Rural
Schools has expired, and as hard as this Committee has worked,
we have had a difficult time getting the rest of Congress to
reauthorize that. And so, are there any tools that come to mind
that you think that we certainly should consider within the
remaining portion of the Farm Bill 2.0?
Dr. Monohan. I would be happy to respond to that, Chairman
Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Please, and thank you for the visit.
Dr. Monohan. Heck yes.
Mr. Thompson. Yes, hosting--our great Chairman and I, we
had a great visit to your headquarters there. Very impressive.
Dr. Monohan. We are very honored to have you come visit us.
My testimony today is speaking about a process, an agreement
type that is already in place that would allow much of what you
are talking about to continue to go forward. And the challenge
that we have with that agreement type is that our Forest
Service partners aren't familiar enough to feel comfortable
using it when it is new to them, so one of the opportunities we
have is to work with them on training so that they can use a
Service First agreement. The Service First would not
necessarily allow harvest. It is basic forestry practices,
right, to allow for fuels reduction, prescribed fire, but we
would need other tools to do more sustainable harvesting, and
that could be the Good Neighbor Agreement, and, again, that is
new to them, this new version of it, and that is what takes
time.
Mr. Thompson. Yes, and my time has expired, but I would
encourage our witnesses, anything you can put in writing and
forward to our Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee.
It is time to get 2.0 done, and I want to make sure, just like
in 2014 and 2018, we have a robust forestry title in what will
be the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2025. So,
thanks so much. I yield back.
The Chairman. I appreciate that. Good work, Mr. Chairman,
and it doesn't always meet the eye for people that a lot of
great forestry work is getting done in our farm bills, so thank
you, sir. Now, with that, will recognize my colleague from
California, Mr. Costa.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman of the
Subcommittee and the Chairman of the full Committee, for
holding this hearing. The purpose, of course, is promoting
forest health and resiliency through improved active
management. Frankly, I think that we need to examine the whole
effort that is going forth between the United States Department
of Agriculture and the Forest Service--U.S. Forest Service
agency in terms of this change that--of rearranging priorities
and the management for the Forest Service. Frankly, I am
puzzled, and I think I have suggested to the Chairman that we
need to have greater oversight in this reorganization act
because I don't think it is clear how--ultimately, what the
goals are going to be and how it is going to impact the
mission, in this case, of the U.S. Forest Service.
I have been here for 21 years, and I think through
Administrations of both parties, there has been a lack of focus
and emphasis on the two areas that we are talking about here
today: forest management and the efforts to provide support for
fire suppression. And what we have done is we have had a series
of circumstances in which we appropriate money for forest
management, but the fire season, as the Chairman noted in his
opening statement, is no longer a season, but it is year round
throughout the West. And we run out of money to deal with the
fire suppression, we borrow that money from forest management,
and we don't do a very good job in either, in my view.
Let me, to the point, talk about an effort that took place
by a number of us a few years ago to provide a 10 year wildfire
crisis strategy, which invested $1.4 billion to deal with
forest management, and, Dr. Monohan, I didn't get a chance to
see you last night, but I am glad you are here because I would
like you to comment on this. It deals with ten high-risk
landscapes in eight western states. It was a tragedy, what
occurred in Chairman LaMalfa's district in Paradise, as we all
noted. We had the Creek Fire in my area some few years ago that
lasted 2\1/2\ months and burned over 400,000 acres of forests.
Right now as I speak, we have the Garnet Fire. In 2 weeks, it
has consumed over 60,000 acres, and it is 15 percent contained.
I am wondering exactly what we are doing, and they--the Forest
Service--the USDA has removed from their website this effort on
the Inflation Reduction Act (Pub. L. 117-169) on $1.4 billion
to manage these ten high-risk areas. I don't understand why
they are doing that, why we are depleting resources from the
Forest Service that needs it now at this critical time with
climate change and other factors that we are dealing with.
Dr. Monohan, would you please comment on where we are
putting our resources and the reduction of people that need to
be there, who have the expertise and the experience to combat
the challenges with this fire season?
Dr. Monohan. Thank you. I think you put--you are right on
it, Congressman Costa. We have separated fire from forestry.
Fire is an important part of forestry and can actually be good
fire to help manage our forests and keep it so that
catastrophic wildfire doesn't destroy them. Because we have
literally separated those funding streams at the very, very
top, we currently have a forest management system that responds
to catastrophic fire after the fact.
Mr. Costa. And it makes no sense. I mean, it is
inconsistent.
Dr. Monohan. Correct. We need long-term sustainable funding
for ongoing forest management that really has nothing to do
with harvesting huge amounts of trees. These forests require
constant work and maintenance, and prescribed fire needs to be
a part of that, right, as does other types of fuels reductions
so we can get to it.
Mr. Costa. Absolutely. We have lost over 20 percent of the
giant sequoia trees since 2015, and right now, this Garnet Fire
is threading another sequoia grove. I wrote a letter yesterday,
many of my California colleagues supported it, to the Secretary
of Agriculture to put a potential focus right now. They are
using Chinook helicopters for night flying, which is good, but
we need to provide other resources so that we don't have a
repeat of what occurred during the Creek Fire some 3 years ago.
Dr. Monohan. I agree completely with you. I am very sad to
see what is happening to the sequoias right now, and, really,
this about getting ahead of the next catastrophic wildfire
already.
Mr. Costa. Yes. My time is expiring here, Mr. Chairman, but
I think Mr. Dane talked about the closure of 130 mills to
provide a logging resource. And there is a lot of complexity
that is involved in our supply chain that I think we need to
really examine when we look at supply of wood materials from
not only Canada, but from Brazil, and how we keep our supply
chain focused in a way that makes sense for all the multiple
uses that we use for wood products. And I know that we don't
have time here, but there are a lot of facets to this important
Subcommittee hearing. I commend you for doing that. I would
like to say one other thing. I would like to invite the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and the representative from the
Forest Service to testify before the Committee as to what this
reorganization means and what their end game is.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Costa. That is certainly, our
intention is, in further hearings, to have them in and get a
handle on where we are right now because this Committee wants
to be more active on that work, so I thank you. And to your
other point, too, we need to have longer-term commitments from
Forest Service supplies so that we can have the milling
capacity, have the confidence they are going to be able to have
a return on investment should they invest in more milling
capacity. That would be huge. So, and last you mentioned some
of the tragedy in our district. I am sorry you got a big fire
going on in yours. This is--actually I was presented with two
gavels, one for the Carr Fire in northern California and one
for the Camp Fire. This is not an oversized gavel. I have just
shrunk a little bit.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. So, with that----
Mr. Costa. Well, the tragedy of our fires in the state and
the West is something that I think we all share.
The Chairman. Big time, sir, yes, and our colleague in
Oregon as well, we are dealing with that. So, let me recognize
Mr. Baird for his opportunity, 5 minutes. Thank you.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking
Member, for holding this hearing, and then I always appreciate
the witnesses making the effort to be here to give us your
insight into whatever industry we are talking about. And, I got
a brother that is involved in the forestry business or in the
industry, and in Indiana, we have a lot of hardwoods, both red
and white oak, cherry, walnut. And since we are talking about
forestry management, the last thing I knew out of Indiana that
through forest management, we end up having more growth than we
do in the harvest, and so the timber is continuing to grow more
than we are harvesting. And the other thing that I think we
need to keep--and this just a comment, but timber, plus the
wood industry, plus the furniture business, really provides us
a long-term carbon sequestration, carbon storage. So, I think
we ought to give the forest industry credit for doing that, but
I better get back on course here, Mr. Chairman.
So, Scott, you laid out the serious decline in forest
health and the urgent need to reduce hazardous fuels through
active management. As Congress works to pass a farm bill this
year, what provisions do you believe are the most critical to
include now so we don't lose more time in tackling the wildfire
crisis and supporting the logging industry? And I know you have
probably addressed that in some of your other comments, but I
will give you an opportunity to review that.
Mr. Dane. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, thank you very much.
When it comes to reducing hazardous fuels, the obstacle there
is what do you do with the low-value/no-value hazardous fuels,
small-diameter unmerchantable timber, and we are really limited
on what we can do because of the lack of infrastructure to
utilize that. And we find that the only viable markets right
now for that are biomass power generation, and they have been
cut out of the tax credits that they have been a part of for
many, many years, and so that jeopardizes those existing
markets. Now, if we can develop new markets, such as
sustainable aviation fuel from forest-based feedstock, to
utilize that, that is great, but we are not there yet. So, we
need to support the biomass power sector as the only viable
option for utilization of hazardous fuels in many cases.
As an example, when the Inflation Reduction Act passed and
there was money for hazardous fuel reduction in there, I spoke
to the White House and I said, ``That is terrific, but what are
you going to do with the biomass once we collect it?'' And they
said, ``What do you mean?'' I said, ``We have such a limited
infrastructure to utilize that, that we don't really have the
ability to transport it 100 miles or more under the current
cost structure.'' So, they said, ``What are you going to do
with it?'' I said, ``We are going to push it up in a pile, and
we are going to light it on fire and open burn.'' So, that is
an example of why we need to have the markets to support the
utilization of hazardous fuels.
Mr. Baird. I can't resist asking--when you talk about the
biomass, I can't resist asking this question about biochar, if
there are any comments you care to make on that in that regard.
Mr. Dane. Yes, there are quite a few developments in the
biochar sector. In fact, I was meeting this week with a couple
of representatives that have biomass power plants, and they are
going to site biochar facilities on their biomass power plant
sites as well. So, it is a new product, but it has a lot of
potential, and forest-based feedstock would be the primary
feedstock for developing biochar.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, and we got about 1 minute left for
me. So, any of the other three of you have any thoughts in that
arena?
Dr. DeLuca. Well, just really briefly, following up on the
biochar issue, one of the key things that has to happen for
biochar to be successful as a product is to demonstrate its
value. It isn't like applying a fertilizer. It doesn't yield at
a direct yield response that you know what you are going to get
out of it in a given year. And so, there are studies that need
to be conducted to demonstrate its long-term value as a soil
amendment because right now, there just isn't a market for
biochar. So, the break-even haul distances to get the stuff to
a place where you can convert it as an energy source is a
problem, but if we can have that value add of biochar, it would
make a big difference.
Mr. Baird. But it is almost pure carbon, and so it would
really contribute to soil health.
Dr. DeLuca. Yes. Yep.
Mr. Baird. Do I have an opportunity to ask one more
question or----
The Chairman. Go fast, and we will let you.
Mr. Baird. Real fast. Anyone else?
Dr. Monohan. I would love to chime in about the biochar
conversation. In our watersheds, we experienced the California
Gold Rush 150 years ago, and we have mine-impacted acres from
hydraulic mining. This is denuded areas with no topsoil. These
areas are excellent for biochar amendments, and we have done
some--both lab tests and field studies with Pacific Southwest
Research Station partners to look at biochar and its benefits
of putting that carbon sequestration benefits included on that
hydraulic mine-impacted landscape, and we would really like to
continue to pursue that. In fact, I mentioned that Forest
Service sometimes are so limited in their capacity, that even
though we brought funded grants to them to continue this work,
they had a hard time accepting and going forward with it
because they were at max.
Mr. Baird. We better end there, and I thank you and
appreciate your responses, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you, Mr. Baird, and, Dr.
Monohan, I was just noting you said 150. Actually, yesterday
was California's 175th birthday, so happy birthday, home state.
Yes, time flies, doesn't it?
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. It is also my mother-in-law's birthday that
day. I won't say what that number is.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. So, anyway, Mr. Riley from New York.
Mr. Riley. Thanks. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I was just about
to jump in and bail you out, but you saved yourself there
with----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Riley. So, where I am from in upstate New York, we know
a thing or two about bad trade deals, lost a lot of jobs over
the last generation because of them, and I think that what we
are seeing right now with our current situation with the
logging industry is really, really bad. Mr. Dane, in your
testimony, you talked a bit about this. I saw you submitted the
Roadmap to Recovery, and in it, you identified a bunch of top
priorities for your Council, and one of those was fixing our
trade system. It is also a top priority for my constituents. I
have one for--just as one example.
I have a constituent in Green County, whose family business
employs dozens of our neighbors. They have become a real, real
leader in sustainability in the community, and their business
is mostly domestic, but, historically, they have depended on
access to foreign markets to stay afloat. And speaking of
staying afloat, she has literally had logs floating in the
ocean since March when China retaliated against Trump's tariffs
regime, and she has lost access to these markets, which is
inflicting a ton of damage on her small family business. And
you meet these folks, they are people who are working their
tails off, they are doing everything that has been asked of
them, and all of a sudden, they have the rug ripped out from
underneath them, and it is just simply not fair to put that
family and that family business in that situation.
And so, my office, we have been pressing USDA and USTR to
make this right for that small family business and their dozens
of employees, but I am pretty frustrated because I don't think
anybody is treating this with the urgency that it demands.
Around this place in Washington, it is bureaucracy and red tape
and nonsense. Back home, these are real jobs for real people in
a real community doing real work, and it is really important.
And your testimony said that there are 150 mills that have
closed in just the last 36 months, and that is just not an
acceptable trajectory for us. And so, my question for you is,
generally, for my constituent, any thoughts that you have for
them, any thoughts that you have for us and for this Committee
to make sure that folks in that situation aren't having so much
damage inflicted on them because of the current trade situation
that we are in.
Mr. Dane. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Congressman. I
am glad you brought that up. The trade policy that we are
talking about is extremely complex, and there--it is--it is far
more than the softwood lumber which gets all the attention. I
have been in touch with your constituents up in New York, and
we have made it very clear that we support the softwood lumber
tariffs and duties. However, we do not support the impacts to
hardwood exports, the point being is these markets are limited
in the United States. Most of the people up near your district
are sourcing or marketing domestically about 50 percent of
their hardwood, but there is no other market left beyond that
capacity, so the China market was extremely important. And
until we get more domestic markets established in the United
States, the American Loggers Council supports the export of
hardwood logs to China, and we have made that clear to the
Administration in our discussions with them as well.
Mr. Riley. Well, I appreciate that very much, and I think
what you described is, as I understand it, with my
constituent's business, exactly the case. They have a
significant, even a majority domestic market, but that market
can't absorb everything, and so they have depended on access to
foreign markets. I think all of it goes to the point that a
smart, strategic, targeted trade policy in this country needs
to make sure that Americans are operating on a level playing
field, and it needs to be thoughtful instead of just throwing a
bunch of stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks. And we
are seeing, if we had a thoughtful strategic trade policy, this
business would be thriving, would be continuing to thrive, and
so I appreciate the nuance that you are thinking about this.
And, Mr. Chairman, with that, I will yield back.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you, Mr. Riley. I will
recognize Mr. Wied from Wisconsin.
Mr. Wied. Well, thank you, Chairman LaMalfa and Ranking
Member Salinas, for this hearing today.
Wisconsin has a strong heritage with the forest products
industry, employing over 57,000 people and contributing nearly
$27 billion to our state economy. The industry ranks second in
economic output for our state. Wisconsin has been a leader in
the lumber industry for nearly 200 years, and I am proud that
my home county, Brown County, is the leader for the state in
terms of jobs and output. Without proper management of our
forests, the rest of this incredibly important industry for
Wisconsin's 8th District would cease to exist. As far as forest
management, I am proud to represent the Menominee Nation, who
are frequently recognized as managing one of the most
sustainable forests in the world. I am proud to serve on this
Subcommittee for this reason and have enjoyed being able to
learn more about the state of American forestry and how we as
Congress can do a better job.
So, as I got to Congress, I immediately recognized the
importance of Wisconsin's timber and paper industry and,
specifically, maintaining and improving the safety and
efficiency of it. Even though it is a transportation- and
infrastructure-referred bill, I wanted to reference how proud I
was to introduce the bipartisan Safe Routes Act of 2025 (H.R.
2166) to promote exactly this by opening up more short-distance
routes for loggers. Mr. Dane, and I will open this up to anyone
here, what are some more creative ways we could promote safety
and efficiency for loggers?
Mr. Dane. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, it is nice to meet
you. I have heard a lot about you from Henry Simbeck who was
here yesterday with me doing some work.
Mr. Wied. Yes.
Mr. Dane. A couple of things to think about. You referenced
the Menominee Tribe, and they are known nationally as one of
the most productive forest programs in the country. And when I
talked to them, they told me that their chief with their
forestland said you start at one end and you log across,
selectively, you practice forest management until you get to
the other end, and then you turn around and you start over
again. They recognize sustainable forestry and practice that as
well as other Tribes, I am sure, across the country. Now, when
it comes to safer routes, I really appreciate that. That is an
important issue. We have no consistency in the United States
for efficient transportation.
Mr. Wied. Yes.
Mr. Dane. We have states that can run 99,000 pounds, that
can run 100,000 thousand pounds year round, different axle
configurations, and they are forcing these logging trucks to
avoid the interstate--that is what we are talking about, the
interstate here--and use county and state roads.
Mr. Wied. Right.
Mr. Dane. In Minnesota, we used to have to run down a
cobblestone road in Duluth, Minnesota, parallel to an
interstate system. Now, we did get the law changed and allowed
us to go around Duluth, Minnesota and use the interstate for a
23 mile corridor.
Mr. Wied. Yes.
Mr. Dane. That would be one step. Another thing for the
farm bill would be the future careers in logging. Workforce
development is critical issue. The timber industry is based on
small, multigenerational family businesses. These are not large
corporations. These are family businesses.
Mr. Wied. Yes.
Mr. Dane. And they just want to train their family members
coming up, just like farmers can do right now, when their
children are 16 and 17 years old to operate mechanized
equipment. Logging is mechanized today. There is still hand
filling, but the majority of it is mechanized. We just want
that same opportunity to train the next generation coming up.
The Secure Our Rural Schools that was mentioned here, for the
first time it is not funded, and it is going to be
catastrophic.
Mr. Wied. Yes.
Mr. Dane. This was designed to replace funding that was
lost by the reduction of Federal timber harvesting receipts to
keep these communities that are forestry dependent whole, and
so Secure Our Rural Schools is important. And then Loggers
Economic Assistance and Relief Act (H.R. 4665) was recently
introduced by Congressman Golden, and it is cosponsored by
Congressman Pete Stauber from Minnesota. We need to have some
safety nets in place for these industries when markets are
closing and stuff. And then, of course, the biomass power under
the renewable fuel standard and the tax credits would go a long
way as well, sir.
Mr. Wied. Great. Well, thank you. Anyone else? We have
about 30 seconds.
Ms. Barnes. Mr. Chairman, if I may, in Utah, piggybacking
off what he said, partnering with the colleges for rural
education in our communities is something we focused on big.
The forestry industry is somewhat depleted in our areas, so
making sure that we can build that trade still in our rural
communities is something that is very important. I would also
say, in Utah, we have a different type of timber market, so not
quite the same of what you are talking about, but also economic
development is important in our communities, and also money
from economic development, whether it is at the state or the
local or even the Federal level, but to help these businesses
get started up. And then also, long-term timber contracts that
they can rely on in order to start producing, and get credit,
and start up these businesses has been really important in
Utah. Utah lost two of our mills recently to fires, and so
trying to get those mills back online and getting them to be in
a profitable manner has been really difficult with our market.
Mr. Wied. Yes. Great. All right. Well, thank you for being
here, and with that I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Wied. For those Members or
staff that are monitoring our Committee on TV, et cetera, we
are getting down to the last couple questions here. So, if they
are on the sidelines or straddling other committees, I would
encourage them to come to our Subcommittee if they wish. So,
anyway, I will recognize myself for a little bit for questions
of our panel. Again, thank you all for being here, and I will
start with Mr. Dane.
You stated a bit earlier that the timber harvest in our
forest system has declined by about 75 percent--I think this is
from about the mid-1990s or so--from a high of about 13 billion
board-feet to right around 3 billion board-feet right now, so,
and even that number, 3 billion, is below what was actually
authorized under current forest plans across the country. So,
talk to me about that inventory. What does that mean as far as
the number of board-feet we are growing each year versus the
number of board-feet we are taking out?
Mr. Dane. Yes. The harvest volume is 25 percent of the
growth volume on National Forests, so that----
The Chairman. So, juxtapose that with overcrowded trees and
landscapes, and things like that. So, if we are going to be
removing product at 25 percent of the growth, 3 to 1--1 to 3--
how is that going to be successful long-term on thinning
forests and getting back to a balance of fire safety and not
overdraft of the--what is water supply. And it might be, we see
when we have arid areas that go through drought, it exacerbates
it. So, touch on that more specifically, please.
Mr. Dane. The USDA's announcement that they want to
increase--in the President's announcement, they want to
increase timber harvest by 25 percent, that would take us from
3 billion board-feet to 4 million board-feet, roughly
speaking--4 billion board-feet. Excuse me.
The Chairman. So, in one sense, 25 percent sounds like a
lot. On the other hand, if we are keeping up with just a mere
fraction of what is growing out there, then that hardly even
touches the issue level we should be. Do you agree with that
or----
Mr. Dane. I agree with that, and you are correct, and the
emphasis needs to really be placed on the western states.
People look at Minnesota as an example where the Federal
forests represent 11 percent of the forestland, and they only
contribute four percent of the harvested volume. Now, that is--
11 percent, four percent, that is a small amount. When you are
out West, you are looking at 50+ percent of Federal land out
there. So it is much more dependent upon increasing the Federal
timber supply to support the mills and increasing capacity for
domestic production. So, the initial steps are not going to be
sufficient to really address the hazard of the density at this
time.
The Chairman. And where does the U.S. rank on imported
lumber as far as other countries?
Mr. Dane. I am afraid I don't have that answer. I know
where the U.S. ranks at the top.
The Chairman. My understanding, it is--up until China had
their downturn in the economy, we were number two. Now we are
the number one importer of wood products, so----
Mr. Dane. We are number one. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I don't know how that makes much sense, but,
Dr. Monohan, again, thank you for being part and for your--our
interactions earlier on in NorCal. Appreciate that. You noted
some hesitancy of Forest Service personnel to use new tools and
authorities unless that has been a long established pattern.
So, there have been discussions with Forest Service on
developing training to help familiarize staff with such
authorities, so can you talk a little more about what it takes
to get personnel up to speed to be either aware of them or be
comfortable or even aggressive on implementing them?
Dr. Monohan. Thank you, Chairman LaMalfa. The idea or the
discussion we had with Chief Schultz and his Office of Tribal
Relations, Reed Robinson, was to try and provide training
materials that came from the Forest Service for the Forest
Service, and that would be the most effective way to have
grants and agreements folks, for example, become familiar with
how to utilize the Service First authority with Tribes that are
coming towards them. We work mostly with people directly in the
districts, right--the silviculturists, the forest engineers,
sometimes the forest ranger--to be able to identify work that
is needed. Those are different folks than the ones that are
doing the grants and agreements, and that connection between
the two is not something an external partner can necessarily be
the best at making. And so, by having those kinds of trainings,
that is what we are hoping to be able to improve efficiencies
for.
The Chairman. Okay. Thank you. My 5 minutes is expiring,
but we are going to go to a second round, so I will recognize
my colleague, Ms. Salinas, here for her second round.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you for the additional time, Chairman
LaMalfa. So, I am going to go back to you, Dr. Monohan. The
President's budget proposal includes significant cuts to
states' Tribal and private forestry programs, and as we have
been talking about, these programs provide technical and
financial assistance to landowners and resource managers to
help sustain the nation's forests and grasslands, protect
communities from wildfire, and restore forest ecosystems. Can
you dive in a little bit deeper and describe how Mooretown
Rancheria interacts with these programs and what their
elimination would actually mean for you and your Tribe?
Dr. Monohan. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member
Salinas. We are in a time of great change. We are at an
inflection point, and we are looking for the most efficient way
to do the most basic forestry practices, and sustained funding
for ongoing forest management is going to be a critical piece
of that. Right now, the funding that we have the most of, the
most types, is wildfire crisis funding, so it is after the
horrible thing has taken place. It is that crisis funding that
comes down to the districts, and it is a response to the
wildfire. I think that forests have been in need of ongoing
sustained funding for a really long time, and that will be
ongoing.
Ms. Salinas. And would their elimination harm localities'
ability to implement responsible forest management practices,
and what would the effect be for economic development for
Tribes?
Dr. Monohan. Every Tribe does forestry a little bit
differently. For our Tribe, it could be devastating to not have
Federal partners in order to do this work.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. All right. So, I am struggling with
trying to figure out what the Administration's plan is around
forest management. I am hearing so many different things, and
so, Dr. DeLuca, this question will go to you. Adding a billion
board-feet of harvest on Federal forests and then this
competing idea that we are seeing increases in pests and
disease and wildfire risk, and I am not sure how you reconcile
a calculated board-feet harvest with our goals on ecosystems
and reducing pest disease and wildfires. Can you help explain
how we get to balance and some of the scientific research
around that?
Dr. DeLuca. I can try. It is--thank you. Yes, it is complex
and I can try, but the whole problem here is complexity. I have
been thinking about this as my fellow panelists have been
talking. We have the significant problem. It is particularly
bad in the West and in the dry forest types in particular. The
value of the timber that exists in those landscapes, having
been managed and then not managed, it is small-diameter, low-
value material, and getting it to market is an enormous
challenge onto itself. Historically, that was managed by Native
American communities for millennia using fire. We are talking
about trying to use mechanical treatments to get in and reduce
the density of those stands, improve the forest health of those
stands. That requires resources because of the fact that the
value is low and the distance to markets is far, so it is very
complex.
At the same time, the value of timber has dropped through
the floor recently, and mills are in trouble. The existing mill
infrastructure is in trouble. So, as we are trying to ramp up
production on Federal land just by 25 percent, where is that
going to go? It does provide an opportunity for private
landowners to go into a longer rotation, but they have to be
able to sustain that longer rotation in terms of, economically,
is it viable to them. So, it is incredibly complex, but I
believe that we know where the biggest problems exist on the
landscape, and we know where the most structures and people's
lives are at risk, and that, of course, is where we have
managed heavily in the past and then we ceased that management.
So, targeting near communities and in areas of dry forest type
make the most sense.
The problem is the highest-value timber isn't going to be
located there. It is going to be in wet, more moist forest
types and in areas where, yes, forest health treatments are
needed, but that may be that it is not at the level of priority
as the dry forest types, which lack the mill infrastructure.
So, sorry to just amp up the complexity perhaps, but I think
that Dr. Monohan's point about fire having been a part of this
landscape, it is a fundamental part of the ecology of these
forests, and we need to learn how to live with fire and how to
work with fire. And that means using those mechanical
treatments that allow us to get fire back on the land then
allow fire to do the work that it normally does in a way that
doesn't threaten communities and threaten lives and economies.
There is also more to say about private land management and
the amount of timber that is being generated there versus what
is being generated on Federal land and putting that in that
global context, because, yes, we are importing--30 percent of
our total lumber demand is coming from outside the country, and
it is coming from places that don't have the environmental laws
like we do have here. And so, we actually export an
environmental footprint that we don't have necessarily here in
this country, and that global context needs to be taken. Sorry
I went over a little.
Ms. Salinas. No. Thank you. Thank you for your response. I
only gave you 3 minutes to explain something very complex.
Thank you.
The Chairman. We can loosen up here a little bit at the
end, so that is all right. Let me come back to you, Dr.
Monohan, on, we were talking about the personnel and ability to
get out the tools and use them a little bit more. Is there any
more you wish to finish on that thought before we go to the
next thought?
Dr. Monohan. I think I said the most important things. I
just think that we do need those folks that are familiar with
the districts and are designing the treatments that need to be
done in those areas to continue to do the work that they are
doing on the--on the Forest Service side, if you will.
The Chairman. Well, I guess it is more specific on newer
tools and newer ideas that--and authorities, exclusive, et
cetera. Are they--hasn't been to--seems it hasn't been the
participation or desire to use those tools as strongly as
some--there is a lot of frustration out there, so.
Dr. Monohan. Yes, that is correct.
The Chairman. Yes.
Dr. Monohan. It is definitely people using what they
already know or what they were trained to use, and those older
ways of doing work are, in general, less efficient than using
their Tribal partners through the Service First authority.
The Chairman. What do we need to take it to the next level?
Do you see pent-up demand or roadblocks towards having more
Tribal and local participation as more towns have been doing
and trying to partner with others on?
Dr. Monohan. I think that is the opportunity we are looking
at squarely in the face and trying to figure out how to do
that. Using Service First for harvesting timber won't
necessarily be the right tool. We will need to use the Good
Neighbor Authority and thank you for this Committee's work on
that.
The Chairman. Yes.
Dr. Monohan. It is very exciting. Again, we have a couple
of folks that are interested in having that conversation with
us at different forests.
The Chairman. Are you seeing any impediments to do that
right now from the government side, or is it a matter of just
getting out there and getting after it?
Dr. Monohan. It will be interesting to see how it plays
out. It will take time. The treatment has to be fully figured
out in order to use a Good Neighbor agreement. That is on the
Forest Service's shoulders, and they are at capacity.
The Chairman. Right.
Dr. Monohan. So, the extent to which that gets out to us
will depend on their ability to get those treatments ready to
be put into an agreement. That is a time-consuming process.
The Chairman. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Dane, let's come back to
the tree mortality situation a little bit. That mortality seems
to be running around nearly two percent per year, additional
trees dying off, and that is not counting fire. Is that just
insects or age, or other factors?
Mr. Dane. That includes fire from the chart that I
submitted with my testimony today.
The Chairman. It does include fire.
Mr. Dane. Fire, natural disasters, insect infestation, yes.
The Chairman. Yes. I guess when I look at some of our
Sierra forests here that haven't burned, like one example east
of Fresno there when we have traveled, there are so many gray
trees amidst the green ones, and so that has got to be insect
or drought. So, what representation is that of the overall
problem?
Mr. Dane. It is a big part of it. In Minnesota, we had a
30,000 acre fire this year. We don't have a lot of wildfires in
Minnesota. It was all spruce budworm kill in the National
Forest, so infestation and mortality as a result of that
definitely has an impact. Many years ago, when Colorado was
impacted by the lodgepole pine beetle infestation, the Forest
Service, the counties, they got together and said, ``Well, we
need to address this problem we have here, let's get the
loggers to come in here and clean this up.'' And then they had
a little bit more of a conversation and they said, ``Wait a
minute, where are all the loggers that used to be here in
Colorado?'' And they said, ``Oh, we ran them off 20 years
ago.''
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Dane. So, they actually called Minnesota loggers to
come down to Colorado to explore cleaning up the timber down
there. So, the infestations are a problem, and if you don't
have support for a timber industry, you can't just turn the
light switch on and bring loggers in to clean up those messes.
The Chairman. So, you can count on a lot of it being not
just insects or drought, but on wildfire, too. Tell me a little
about what is your thinking on the way wildfire is handled. We
have had some frustration in past years of a monitoring
approach with Forest Service on at least several California
fires, and even though there were promises made to jump on them
as soon as possible, why does it seem there is so much
frustration with monitoring, or my deal is I always like to say
I would like to get the fire out before it has a name or a tee
shirt vendor selling it with the name. So, how do we--what is
your--what is your picture--why do you picture that with the--
how the veracity of a getting at the fire and how hard it is
fought on Federal land?
Mr. Dane. When my son was young, he fell down and got
injured and hurt his back, and they were--he actually lost
feeling from his waist down for a period of time. And we
brought him into the doctor, and the doctor said, ``Well, we
are going to practice skillful neglect.'' I said, ``What does
that that mean?'' He said, ``We are not going to do anything.
We will just watch and see what happens.'' I think that
describes the firefighting response for the past few decades of
skillful neglect of monitoring. However, this new
Administration, this new fire chief, U.S. Forest Service, USDA
is taking a much more aggressive approach to firefighting. Now,
it can be argued that that aggressive approach might contribute
to the buildup of density and fuels and stuff, but you got one
choice or the other, and I think that we can deal with the
fuels in a different way than strictly fire.
The Chairman. Fire is a great tool if used properly. Of
course we had an example in New Mexico a few years ago. I wish
our colleague could have been here to ask about that, but I
think over 300,000 acres from a prescribed fire that was done
incorrectly timing-wise, weather-wise, what have you.
Is hesitancy for using more of good fire grow out of that,
or are we utilizing prescribed fire the way we should be?
Mr. Dane. I don't think we are utilizing it to the degree
that we could be utilizing it. It is very tricky. I have been
on wildfires myself and everything else like that, so I know
one time a fire got away. They do get away, I mean, and it was
interesting. The after-action report that came out on that, the
Forest Service said we had an over-achievement of our
prescribed fire plan.
The Chairman. Hmm. Yes, treated acres. Ms. Barnes, would
you like to touch upon that from the Utah perspective?
Ms. Barnes. Yes, I would. Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman.
I think prescribed fire is something we try to use in Utah and
use it the right way. This year, we were in a full suppression
mode on all fires because of the drought in Utah and because of
the excessive fuels. We had two really good winters that had an
excessive grass crop with flashy fuels and hot temperatures,
but I do think that we have to be careful when we are doing
prescribed fire. It is easy to turn a community off to
prescribed fire if it is not done in the right way. It is a
useful tool on the landscape that can be done wisely and
correctly. Right now in Utah, managing our forests is something
that we have looked at doing cross-boundary-wise and using all
kinds of different methods to do that, but I think it is an
important way to use prescribed fire on the landscape. Also, we
have a lot of beetle kill in Utah. Trying to figure out what to
do with those trees, get in, and reduce those fuels on that
landscape is something that is very important to us that we are
trying to work through. Those present a catastrophic wildfire
hazard, and so reducing that is very important.
The Chairman. Thank you. I have blown through my timeline
that is loosening up here. I will recognize Ms. Salinas for a
while.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Chairman LaMalfa. This has been a
great conversation. So, Ms. Barnes, in your testimony, you
touched on the importance of the Reforestation, Nurseries, and
Genetics Resources program, which supports tree planting to
help rehabilitate forestlands after severe fire events and
other natural disasters. Can you share some more specifics as
to why additional investment in the reforestation supply chain
is needed?
Ms. Barnes. Yes. So, this RNGR program is something that
has been really important, bringing partners in for native
plant seed, and talking about reforestation work, also for
seedling production and focusing on adequate supplies of
seedlings. Unfortunately, in Utah, more than a few years ago,
probably within the last 10 years, we lost our nursery in Utah,
so we rely on other states now for that seedling production or
private nurseries in that area for that, or a seed warehouse
where we do seeding but don't have any of the seedlings. So,
ultimately, this is very important for forest resilience,
landscape reclamation, and also just for the rehabilitation
after extreme fire events, and it is something that really
needs to be focused on.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you, and I appreciate that, given that I
do have a big nursery industry in Oregon, so I do hope Oregon
is a state that you look to, but would love to work with you on
that program.
Ms. Barnes. Yes, that would be great.
Ms. Salinas. Okay, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. I wanted to go over this roadless
issue a little bit here because it has been made controversial.
And so, Ms. Barnes, what have you seen in Utah and the other
areas you have expertise on with--previous roads, we have a lot
that has happened in California, but roads that already existed
being removed. I know of people saying, ``Well, they are paid,
contracted to remove roads.'' And so, when we talk about
roadless areas, what are the facts on areas that did used to
have roads and were actually able to be logged, managed,
utilized, et cetera, and then made roadless because of neglect,
became too expensive is sometimes the excuse to maintain, or
just, flat, the priorities changed and they didn't want roads
on them anymore. Do you have any insight on that inventory of
roads going down versus some of the areas being talked about
for possible new roads going in?
Ms. Barnes. Yes. I don't have those exact numbers. I would
be happy to provide those with you as far as Utah goes on the
inventory of the number of roads. The Roadless Rule in Utah----
The Chairman. What does the trend feel like to you in Utah
then?
Ms. Barnes. There are quite a few areas that have been
closed off due to the Roadless Rule that prevents us from
getting in and doing work in that area.
The Chairman. But, you used to have roads or----
Ms. Barnes. Correct, yes.
The Chairman. Yes. So, they have been taken out.
Ms. Barnes. Yes. So, with regard to that, Utah would
support being able to get into areas to do fuel mitigation
work. The one thing that we can't control is where that fire
starts, and that is the unfortunate place for us. The one thing
we can try to control is the fuels, like I was talking about
earlier. So, being able to navigate through those areas and
remove those hazardous fuels is something that we would benefit
from, and also being able to reduce the risk of catastrophic
wildfire.
The Chairman. What do you think of this contention that
installing roads means more fire where the roads are versus how
fires are caused, because what I notice in my area is that you
will have hundreds--many hundreds of lightning strikes causing
fire of one size or the other versus roadways that do have
people going up and down them. Like, the Carr Fire in Redding
was caused by a flat tire on somebody towing a trailer and
ground the tire down until you made sparks and it got in the
weeds. Even then, the response could have probably put it out,
but that is a different story. So, what about this idea that
roaded areas are somehow a greater fire danger than natural
causes, such as lightning, et cetera?
Ms. Barnes. Yes, I think there is truth to that. I mean, in
Utah we have a number of human-caused wildfires.
The Chairman. Sure.
Ms. Barnes. One thing we have done in Utah is we have
started what we call the Fire Sense Program, and that is
changing human behaviors of how humans start wildfires. We have
been really successful at reducing human-caused wildfires in
Utah. This is an educational campaign. We have been able to
reduce human-caused wildfires. They were up in the upwards of
80 percent. We are now down into the 50 to 60 percent, so that
is almost a 60 percent reduction in some years for human-caused
wildfires. Unfortunately, this year, we have seen some large
fires on our landscape in Utah that have been caused by humans.
We also get a lot of dry lightning in Utah, and that also
causes fires. But I think focusing on what your number one
cause of those starts are and starting campaigns like we have
for Fire Sense that really focuses on that human behavior
change is really, really important. I would encourage other
states to look to Utah as we have had a lot of success in that
area. The one thing that we can control, and I will go back to
that, is just the fuels on the landscape by doing proactive
work, and that is something that we are trying to get better at
doing.
The Chairman. Certainly. We have worked legislatively to
try to have more clearance around roads, and especially power
lines, too, we are not talking every Forest Service road, per
se, of having a wide gap, but certainly along our highways, our
freeways, the bigger roads, we need to have a wider buffer
between them and the forested area. And, Mr. Dane, would you
touch on that a little bit, too, please with the roadless
conversation?
Mr. Dane. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the
opportunity. I was getting a little anxious there. I wanted to
try chime in there. The Roadless Rule was an end-run to block
access, and particularly for logging and mining. That is my
opinion, okay? However, it was an artificial restriction.
Before the Roadless Rule, for 100 years, forest management was
working just fine. So, according to the American Forest
Resource Council, nearly half of all roadless acres are located
in areas rated as high or very high wildfire risk. Since the
Roadless Rule was enacted, more than 8 million acres of
roadless forests have burned, highlighting the consequences of
limiting access and management.
The Chairman. Yes. And so, the Roadless Rule was merely put
in by the Forest Service as a guidance or as a rule. It wasn't
made by a change of law, correct?
Mr. Dane. Yes, it was a rule. In fact, if you look back at
the history of it, there were quite a few comments opposing it
from within the Forest Service.
The Chairman. Within the Forest Service. Okay. So, I guess
the winds change on that a little bit, don't they? Do you have
anything more? You got shorted last time. Okay. All right.
Well, I could go all day, but I don't think everybody wants to
do that. We are pretty fired up about this issue.
So, I will close a little bit on the personnel, which is
indeed a difficult one, with Forest Service, that we know that
they have over 11,000 firefighters on hand, which, actually, is
above their stated goal for 2025. So, we have--did have--indeed
have employees leave the agency, and some do hold red cards and
those were able to be recalled, and a handful--300 of them
are--came back that actually ever had fire experience. So, the
numbers we are talking about on the firefighting side is--we
are not out of bounds, so, and, indeed, we will come back to
the thought that staffing is a challenge. We had a firing--
excuse me--a hiring freeze that was initiated over a year ago
under the previous regime as well, you can go back and forth on
that, but I think we will continue to work to make sure that we
have the best trained, best equipped as best we can, and we
will get through this because we want great results.
And the partnerships like Dr. Monohan was working on, and
those are pretty great, and many others around the country, so
we want to expand upon that with more success in the farm bill.
We still have to address the skinny portion in the farm bill
where policy changes and updates will be done here soon, and
so, hopefully, we can get that done, right? So, I think we are
in a pretty good spot for today's hearing. I look forward to
having more here soon. We have been trying to drink from a fire
hose so far this year, so I would like to have more of this
activity right, Ms. Salinas, and address it because it is a big
thing.
Ms. Salinas. Yes.
The Chairman. It is an ongoing issue in the midst of this
fire season here. Thankfully, it hasn't been worse, but I won't
say that to people's six-digit fires in their district too
much. So, anyway let me get to the legalities here real
quickly, and we will----
Ms. Salinas. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Did you have a closing thought?
Ms. Salinas. Just quickly, yes.
The Chairman. Okay. Let me recognize Ms. Salinas for a
closing statement.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again
to our witnesses for being here today. Like I said, the
conversation was very robust, and I think we had a lot of
takeaways. And I am really concerned, actually, about our
forest health and the capacity to address it at the Federal
level, and I don't think we are making the right investments.
We weren't at a place of full capacity when I got to Congress
in 2023, and the situation has only gotten worse. And from the
witnesses today, I think we all do need to work together to
figure this out, to make sure that we have market access and a
fair level playing field for the wonderful product that we do
have here in the United States. And I think we have to figure
out how we restore balance, but we do need the help of the
Federal Government, and the workforce that it provides, and the
right training as well, and that was a big takeaway for me
today.
So, I just want to thank, again, our witnesses. I am eager
to work across the aisle with my colleagues and to figure out
how we move something that meets the moment and meets the
demand that we are seeing. So, thank you, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. All right. About to wrap up here,
too. So, I guess just one final thought on the roadless areas
is that just because it might be declared open to 58 million
acres additionally, it doesn't mean all 58 million are going to
have that work done on them. It is going to be pretty strategic
in where, if it is access to timber or if it is an issue of the
best strategy for the infrastructure for fighting fire.
Sometimes the things get a little hysterical on that, but
certainly you are not going to see all 58 million acres
immediately affected by roads. I have had some conservationists
or outdoors folks expressing some opinions with me on that, and
it is when you are talking about some of our trails for--
Pacific Crest Trail, actually, is closed in a portion right
now. And that is--you are not going to necessarily preserve all
of it by being forced to stay out of it.
So, I think what we are just after here really is the
ability to manage the land and have it be healthy, fire safe,
and, of course, the economic value that we used to have for our
communities that the timber and seeds will bring. Instead, we
have to go hat in hand each year and work on this battle for
Secure Rural Schools, which I hope we can get done in this CR
round here because we are way over time on that, and it is kind
of shameful. So, with that, thank you, panelists. Thank you for
your time, your travel, and for everybody taking part, our
staff here both sides of the aisle, fellow colleagues.
So, under Rules of the Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
additional material or supplementary written responses from any
of the witnesses to any question posed by any of the Members
today.
So, this hearing of the Subcommittee on Forestry and
Horticulture is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]