[Senate Hearing 119-74]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-74
LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO REVIEW S. 1462,
FIX OUR FORESTS ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
May 6, 2025
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on http://www.govinfo.gov/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-341 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas, Chairman
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado
JONI ERNST, Iowa TINA SMITH, Minnesota
CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
TOMMY TUBERVILLE, Alabama BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
JAMES C. JUSTICE, West Virginia RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia
CHARLES GRASSLEY, Iowa PETER WELCH, Vermont
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska ADAM SCHIFF, California
JERRY MORAN, Kansas ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan
Fitzhugh Elder IV, Majority Staff Director
Jessica L. Williams, Chief Clerk
Lauren Santabar, Minority Staff Director
Chu-Yuan Hwang, Minority Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, May 6, 2025
Page
Hearing:
Legislative Hearing to Review S. 1462, Fix Our Forests Act....... 1
----------
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS
Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota.... 1
Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas...... 4
WITNESS
French, Chris, Acting Associate Chief, U.S. Department of
Agriculture Forest Service, USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC 3
----------
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
French, Chris................................................ 26
Document(s) Submitted for the Record:
Boozman, Hon. John:
American Property Casualty Insurance Association, letter of
support.................................................... 32
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, letter of support...... 34
Question and Answer:
French, Chris:
Written response to questions from Hon. John Boozman......... 38
Written response to questions from Hon. Ben Ray Lujan........ 41
Written response to questions from Hon. Peter Welch.......... 44
Written response to questions from Hon. Adam Schiff.......... 45
LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO REVIEW S. 1462,
FIX OUR FORESTS ACT
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2025
U.S. Senate
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:02 p.m., in
Room 328A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Boozman,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Boozman [presiding], McConnell, Hoeven,
Marshall, Justice, Klobuchar, Bennet, Smith, Welch, and Schiff.
STATEMENT OF HON. KLOBUCHAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA, U.S. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND
FORESTRY
Senator Klobuchar. [Presiding.] I am going to call the
hearing to order, and Senator Boozman is on his way. He was
just voting.
I want to thank our witness, Mr. French, for being here. I
know we will be introducing you shortly as Acting Associate
Chief French. That is a long title. Thank you. Thirty-four
years of service at the Department of Agriculture, thank you
for appearing before our Committee.
The Fix Our Forests Act that we are going to be considering
here today is the first major standalone forestry bill Congress
has debated in more than two decades, and that is why we look
forward to hearing your testimony. We also appreciate the
bipartisan work of Senators Hickenlooper, Padilla, Curtis, and
Sheehy to introduce a Senate version of the bill.
As everyone knows, in the country earlier this year,
wildfires raged across Los Angeles, killing dozens of people,
devastating homes and businesses. This spring, wildfires
threatened homes and communities in the Carolinas and Georgia.
Rising temperatures, drier summers, longer wildfire seasons,
and earlier snowmelt are driving these fires as forests depart
from their historical conditions. There are growing threats
across the Nation.
We have seen threats to forests in other ways, and in the
last farm bill, I supported improvements to the Good Neighbor
Authority, a bipartisan effort, and the execution of vegetation
management projects to reduce wildfire risk. Now the size and
scope of these fires and the level of need for forest
restoration make it clear that we must do more to improve
current tools, like the Good Neighbor Authority, and we must
invest more in wildfire prevention.
In recent years, I have supported additional permitting
flexibilities and investments in wildfire risk prevention. As a
result of these laws, a record-breaking 4.28 million acres were
treated for wildfire last year alone. Unfortunately, we are
seeing from this Administration cuts to the Forest Service. The
recently released budget proposes deep reductions in National
Forest system funding, popular programs that strengthen state
and private capacity for managing forests, and forestry
research.
Eliminating the successful bipartisan collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration Program is something that the Fix Our
Forests Act seeks to improve, and the budget sadly recommends
moving wildfire operations out of the USDA's Forest Service.
These are concerning proposals that have an impact on lives and
livelihoods.
Equally concerning, the Forest Service has reportedly lost
more than 4,000 employees since January, and while many
wildland firefighters have been exempted from workforce
reduction initiatives, I am concerned that many Forest Service
employees with so-called red cards have departed the agencies.
These employees are crucial.
Funding is another important consideration as the Committee
discusses this important bill, the Fix Our Forests Act. In its
latest update on the Wildfire Crisis Strategy's implementation,
the Forest Service reported that in some areas there is more
work to do than workforce capacity. Regardless of what the USDA
calls its wildfire strategy, what remains the same is the need
for tree thinning and prescribed fire to occur on some acres.
The new wildfire intelligence center, fireshed assessments,
increasing the pace and scale of forest restoration work, and
reforestation, all of these new authorities demand resources.
We can all agree that more active forest management is needed,
but we must make sure we have the resources to do it and we
keep the employees to do it.
I just want to thank you, Mr. French, for being here.
Again, we are really pleased that there has been such good work
done on a bipartisan basis, and I am sure some of our
colleagues will be here soon.
Now I am going to introduce you, Mr. French, or should we
wait?
Okay. Mr. French serves as the Acting Associate Chief for
the U.S. Forest Service at USDA. Prior to this assignment, he
served as the Deputy Chief of the National Forest System, where
he was responsible for policy oversight and direction for
natural resource management and public service delivery
programs across the 193 million acres of national forests and
grasslands in the National Forest System. He has spent a 34-
year career, as I mentioned, at USDA, working in a number of
positions within the Forest Service, and his testimony today
will be invaluable.
Again, thank you for being here this afternoon, Mr. French,
and you are recognized for your statement. Then I know we will
look forward to hearing from Chairman Boozman. Thank you, Mr.
French.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS FRENCH, ACTING ASSOCIATE CHIEF, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE, USDA FOREST SERVICE,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. French. Thank you, Ranking Member Klobuchar and Members
of the Committee. My name is Chris French, and I am the
Associate Chief of the Forest Service, and I appreciate the
opportunity to provide the perspective of the USDA Forest
Service on the Senate draft of the Fix Our Forests Act.
Our national forests are facing great challenges:
uncharacter-istically severe wildfires, insect and disease
outbreaks, invasive species, and many other stressors. Although
the Forest Service has been working diligently with resources
and authorities it has been given, there is still much to be
done to improve the health and productivity of our Nation's
forests.
President Trump's Executive Order 14225 and Secretary
Rollins' Secretarial Memo 1078-006 help the agency take
immediate action to mitigate risk, protect public health and
safety and critical infrastructure, support local and rural
economies, and mitigate threats to natural resources on the
National Forest System lands.
The Senate draft of Fix Our Forests Act works to address
these issues, as well as a variety of other new programs and
amendments to existing authorities. The bill compiles several
separate bills related to wildfire breaks, forest health,
forest management, and other provisions. USDA supports the bill
and would like to continue to work with the Subcommittee on
technical changes. I will highlight a few areas.
USDA strongly supports streamlining NEPA procedures under
the National Environmental Policy Act and expanding existing
categorical exclusions to reduce wildfire risk and improve
forest health. In order to expedite the implementation of the
categorical exclusion for high-priority hazard trees proposed
in Section 213, we would encourage the Committee to establish
the categorical exclusion statutorily rather than directing the
Secretary to do so within a year.
USDA also supports the proposed fix to the problematic
Cottonwood decision and would like to work with the Committee
and our federal partners on technical changes to address the
issue once and for all.
USDA supports provisions of the collaborative tools in
Title I(b). We support the changes to Good Neighbor Authority
and would support adding a provision that would allow retained
timber receipts to be used for the construction of roads, as we
saw in the House draft.
In addition, we support extending the maximum length of
stewardship and result contracting projects from 10 to 20
years, as we see in Section 112.
Further, we support raising the threshold at which timber
sales must be advertised and would encourage the Committee to
add a provision to make annual increases to the threshold to
account for inflation.
USDA sees prescribed fire as a critically important tool to
support wildfire risk reduction and forest management. We
support the subtitle on prescribed fire as it would support our
work to reduce the risk that wildfires pose to our communities
and resources. Specifically, this subtitle would strengthen our
fire workforce by streamlining certification requirements and
increasing their interoperability with our non-federal
partners, as well as offering our prescribed fire managers more
liability protections. We will be able to strengthen our
partnerships with a variety of entities through the new
cooperative agreements and contracts authorized by this
section.
We would like to work with the Committee to clarify a few
sections, including on the use of pile burning and the nexus to
prescribe fire has with regulatory compliance.
Last, though USDA is largely supportive of our Fix Our
Forests Act, USDA does not support the incorporation of
containerized systems into our suppression response under
Section 306 given firefighter safety and other operational
concerns.
Chairman Boozman, Ranking Member Klobuchar, Members of this
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present USDA's
views on this proposed legislation, and I look forward to
answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. French can be found on page
26 in the appendix.]
Chairman Boozman. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. French. Thank
you, Senator Klobuchar, for getting us off to a good start.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOOZMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
ARKANSAS, CHAIRMAN, U.S. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION,
AND FORESTRY
Chairman Boozman. We are here to review S. 1462, the Fix
Our Forests Act, commonly referred to as FOFA. I welcome our
witness, Mr. Chris French, Acting Associate Chief for the U.S.
Forest Service, for being here today. I know you are a busy
guy, but we appreciate you coming and sharing your insight.
Members and staff on both sides of the aisle and both
chambers of Congress have invested significant time and efforts
to bring this legislation in front of our Committee today. I
want to thank my colleagues, Senator Curtis, Hickenlooper,
Padilla, and Sheehy for their tireless efforts in developing
and introducing this bipartisan Senate bill.
I also want to thank Senator Marshall and Senator Bennet
for your work as Chair and Ranking Member at the Subcommittee
regarding the hearing you convened in March on H.R. 471, the
House-Passed Fix Our Forests bill.
Finally, I want to thank my friend and fellow Arkansan
House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman,
who, along with Congressman Scott Peters of California, led an
exhaustive bipartisan effort to construct and pass H.R. 471 on
the House floor with 279 votes in January of this year.
As we all know, wildfires are indifferent to federal,
state, tribal, and private property lines or political
subdivisions. The Fix Our Forests Act provides us with a unique
bipartisan opportunity to modernize and right-size some of the
tools and processes our federal land management agencies,
states, counties, tribes, rural and urban communities, and
private partners across the country need to mitigate the
frequency and intensity of catastrophic wildfire while helping
to keep our forests healthy and working for generations to
come.
Similar to the House-Passed legislation, S. 1462 identifies
and prioritizes the most fire-prone landscapes and provides
federal land-grant management agencies with improved
authorities and technologies to mitigate those risks as
exponentially as possible. It enhances the Federal Government's
public-private partnership authorities to increase the pace and
scale of the work needed on the ground.
S. 1462 rectifies certain processes to mitigate frivolous
litigation and remove duplicative review processes to
facilitate the Forest Service's ability to proceed with its
statutorily required environmental review process for projects
on the National Forest System lands.
This legislation also elevates the critical need to
incentivize innovation and resilience in our Nation's forests
by prioritizing initiatives such as biochar, nursery capacity,
and white oak restoration.
This legislation reflects the bipartisan efforts and ideas
to mitigate the frequency and intensity of catastrophic
wildfire, and I am pleased Members of the Committee will have
this opportunity to further explore FOFA and hear from the
Forest Service on how the legislation will reduce catastrophic
wildfires and improve forest health.
I am grateful for the work our colleagues have done on both
sides of the Capitol and the aisle that brings us to this
point. I look forward to working with my colleagues through the
Committee process before the end of this work period to deliver
these essential improvements and modernized tools to our
federal land management agencies.
With that, we will start with our questions, if I can find
them. Okay. I need all the help I can get here.
Mr. French, can you please help the Committee gain a full
understanding of the agency's use of categorical exclusions and
what actions must still be taken in order to use them,
regardless of size?
How will the categorical exclusions in S. 1462 help advance
the pace and the scale of forest management, and should
Congress consider additional or even increasing categorical
exclusions?
Mr. French. Sure. Okay, thank you, Senator. A categorical
exclusion is one of the ways that you comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act. It does not exempt you from the
National Environmental Policy Act. It is an approach for
documenting and being transparent to the public about what the
effects are of the project you are going to do. It is for
projects that we have found to be, or Congress has found to be,
routinely non significant. For a project that may be considered
significant under NEPA, we may look at an environmental
assessment, or we may look at an environmental impact
statement.
A CE is a project that has been found to be non
significant, and we are disclosing the effects of that project
to the public through the categorical exclusion process. You
have to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act, the
Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species
Act, and you have to be regulated and go through the processes
with those agencies on any of those projects.
Chairman Boozman. Very good. Mr. French, can you explain
how frivolous litigation has slowed down the Forest Service's
ability to conduct proper forest management to reduce fuels and
how this legislation would help alleviate these delays?
Mr. French. Litigation, especially in certain parts of the
country, add a lot of additional process and analysis to the
projects that we do. I will give you a few examples of this.
The most litigated areas that we have in the National Forest
System are up in Montana, Idaho, Region One, California,
Oregon, Washington. In these areas, what we generally find is
that the level of analysis and disclosure we do through NEPA is
considerably longer and more extensive than we do in other
places because we are defending ourselves from litigation that
we often will get on vegetation management fuels reduction
projects.
This will add about $100,000 to $125,000 onto the cost of
every project. It generally doubles the cost it takes us to
deliver, let's say, a board foot from an area that is not
litigated than it does to an area that does. It adds
considerable burden in terms of timeframe. For a community that
is looking for us to perform a hazardous fuels reduction
project in and around their community, we may propose it and be
ready to implement it within about a year and a half, but if it
goes under litigation, we may not actually be able to implement
it for three to four years or longer.
Chairman Boozman. Very good. Mr. French, can you help the
Committee understand why, despite limited emergency authorities
provided in prior legislation, enactment of FOFA and greater
certainty at the agency is necessary?
Mr. French. Well, I think FOFA does a few things for us.
One, it recognizes the size of the problem that we have across
the National Forest System in terms of fire and forest health
and appropriately sizes the projects and authorities we have to
the problem at hand. We are having fires that are impacting
sometimes a million acres. We have fires that are 100,000 acres
that are no longer considered exceptional.
The work that we have to do both to prevent those and to
respond after is no longer something that is 250 acres or even
3,000 acres but is much grander and much larger than that if we
are going to be effective. FOFA recognizes that and puts
together the set of tools for both us to plan where we need to
do our work and how to do it more quickly, and it puts it in
statute so it is not as susceptible to litigation.
Chairman Boozman. Very good. Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. French, the Fix Our Forests Act improves the Good
Neighbor and stewardship contracting authorities that leverage
state, tribal, county, and industry partners to achieve more
forest restoration. I have long helped champion improvements to
these tools, which are a priority for my state and Senator
Smith's state, same state, where active forest management is
needed to enhance the health of Minnesota. Yes, I did not mean
Wisconsin. They often confuse Senator Baldwin and Senator
Smith, whole other story--to enhance the health of Minnesota's
forests.
Mr. French, how will changes to Good Neighbor Authority and
stewardship contracting provide more long-term certainty to the
Forest Service partners and assist forest restoration efforts?
Understanding that you may want some changes to the bill, there
may be other changes proposed here, but talk about that issue.
Mr. French. Yes, I mean, forest management across this
country is a very collaborative effort between local, state,
and federal agencies, and especially for us. We found the Good
Neighbor tool to be exceptionally helpful, working with state
agencies to implement forest management work on National Forest
System lands. It allows us to essentially do a lot more and
more efficiently and effectively given the staffing that we
have.
The changes that are being proposed here recognizes the
costs that go with the state so they can use the receipts to
actually fund the program they are doing to help manage federal
lands, and that is appropriate and helpful. Otherwise, they are
just getting limited resources.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. As I noted, the President's
budget--and I do not expect you to be the commentator on that--
proposes cuts to National Forest System management, staffing,
and facilities, state, private, tribal forestry assistance,
forestry research. This includes eliminating a program that has
reduced wildfire risk across five million acres.
Then part of the budget notes that there will be a shift to
the state. Has the USDA evaluated if states have the capacity
and resources to assume a greater role in forest management?
Mr. French. We are in constant discussions and
collaboration with state foresters across this country. In
fact, we just sat down last week and talked through them about
better ways for us to work together to share capacity. It is
mixed. From state to state, they have different capacity. I
think some of the changes that are associated with FOFA
actually gives them the tools they need to bring that up.
For us, we found the work that we do with counties, tribes,
and states through Good Neighbor to be exceptionally helpful,
especially when we may have limited capacity on our own.
Senator Klobuchar. Last month, Senator Heinrich and I sent
a letter to the USDA expressing concerns and raising questions
about potential workforce reductions at the Forest Service. We
recently received a response, but I am looking forward to more
information on workforce reduction efforts and the funding and
hiring freezes at the Forest Service. I think we all know these
workers are critical.
Mr. French, how are you planning around the potential
staffing cuts to ensure all these major responses continue to
be met? Are you concerned about losing employees who hold so-
called red cards that allow them to respond to fires?
Mr. French. Yes, thank you for the question. Our highest
priority right now--and we just sat down with our leadership
team and assessed the changes that have happened in our
workforce and the changes that we have seen or the losses we
have had for people that were red-carded to help with fire.
Fire is incredibly integrated across the Forest Service. It is
not just primary firefighters, but it is thousands of employees
across the Forest Service that contribute and help, especially
during that season.
We have assessed what that looks like. We have prioritized
response to wildfire across the agency to be the number one
priority for all employees so that as we are going into this
season, we are able to activate, whether that is in support of
a camp and the logistics associated with a fire, or delivering
the preparedness we need to do on the line. We are working
closely with interagency partners. We are actually providing
for how we would fill in spaces that we need, but it is going
to take an all-hands approach until we rebuild some of those
skillsets.
Senator Klobuchar. How would additional resources for
programs like Watershed Condition Framework or Water Source
Protection Program help the Forest Service meet the goals that
it has, especially with changes under the Fix Our Forests Act?
Mr. French. I mean, I think everyone knows that the Forest
Service was founded primarily around the ability to deliver
clean water to America and a sustainable flow of timber. The
focus that we have on delivering healthy watersheds, funding
that goes there helps us expand and maintain that. We know that
right now when we have a wildfire that is, like I said, of
hundreds of thousands of acres or a million acres, the
consequences of sediment flow, the consequences of water
delivery to systems downstream are so consequential----
Senator Klobuchar. Okay.
Mr. French [continuing]. so anything we can do to fix that
is helpful.
Senator Klobuchar. All right. Just very quick last
question, will the Forest Service be able to continue treating
more acres once the additional funding provided in recent years
is no longer available?
Mr. French. You are specifically referring to the
supplemental funds we got through IIJA and IRA?
Senator Klobuchar. I am talking about treating the acres
against wildfire.
Mr. French. Yes. We have invested a lot of those funds so
that they will be able to provide work over time with a lot of
partners right now, so we should see that continue for a little
while. Essentially, we are going to have to change our business
model for how we are doing some of that work if we are going to
maintain the acres that we are doing right now. We are going to
have to depend more heavily on private partnerships, on states
to do some of that work because the funding levels will not be
the same.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Chairman Boozman. Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall. Well, thank you, Chairman, and welcome,
Mr. French, to the Agriculture Committee. I think you are going
to find that is not only brighter but much friendlier than the
E&R Committee.
I want to talk about our RNGR Support Act, if you are
familiar with it. It is a legislation that Senator Hickenlooper
and I introduced before. Our bill included a dedicated funding
mechanism through the Reforestation Trust Fund to ensure we
would not be diverting resources from other essential programs.
Given your leadership on national forestry priorities,
would you agree that using the Reforestation Trust Fund offers
a sustainable path to implementing the bill without impacting
other critical programs?
Mr. French. As what I have read thus far and understand it,
yes.
Senator Marshall. Okay. Next, has the U.S. Forest Service
provided technical assistance on how to implement RNGR without
pulling from existing state, private, and tribal forestry
funding?
Mr. French. I believe we have. We will have to get back
with you on that one.
Senator Marshall. Okay, thank you.
Mr. French. Yep.
Senator Marshall. Is the agency open to state
representation on the Wildfire Intelligence Center Board, as is
the case with other interagency entities in the fire management
system, such as the National Multi-Agency Coordinating Group
and the National Wildfire Coordinating Group?
Mr. French. Absolutely. I mean, wildfire is an interagency,
it is a local county, it is a state, it is a federal response,
and the only way to do this effectively is with that
representation within the Intelligence Center.
Senator Marshall. Okay. Just kind of a general question,
has it been your experience, or do they have the potential--I
am referring to mills, whether it be a paper mill or a lumber
mill--do they have the potential to contribute to the proper
management of forests?
Mr. French. Absolutely. I mean, having a thriving forest
product sector is essential for us to be able to reduce
wildland fire risk across this country and to provide jobs to
local economies.
You know, essentially what is happening, especially through
most of the West, is that when we have been putting out our
fires and removing fires, we just have lots more trees than we
ever had. Those trees are competing for water, resources. They
are dying. They are affected by insect and disease. Thinning
those forests are incredibly important for their health, but it
is also incredibly important to reduce wildfire. Low-level
wildfires we can manage. High, catastrophic, 100,000, million-
acre wildfires, they are devastating.
The forest products industry, a diversifying industry, an
integrated industry allows us to treat those lands so that they
are healthier, they reduce risk, and at a level that is much
more reasonable to the American taxpayer because you are able
to produce a product to do that work where you are not having
to pay as much per acre.
Senator Marshall. If we do not have any paper mills or
timber mills in Kansas, so I am not familiar with the industry,
do they rent the part of the forest and then you are able to
take those monies and do good things with it, I would suppose?
Mr. French. We essentially offer timber or biomass to
forest products industry, whether they are making dimensional
lumber or they are burning it for energy production. We will
offer it through sales, timber sales. The revenues from that go
back to things such as reforestation. They go back to doing
other work on the landscape like habitat improvement and to the
Treasury and to counties for their school funds.
Senator Marshall. Okay.
Mr. French. We also offer it through what are called
stewardship agreements where we trade the value of that timber
for other work that can be done. We do it through what are
called Good Neighbor Agreements where we allow the states to
implement that work on our behalf or tribes or a local county.
We have a variety of mechanisms that we use in order to
essentially remove that material and put it to market.
Senator Marshall. Have the number of mills in the country
decreased? Are they staying the same? What has led to that
stability or instability?
Mr. French. The forest products industry has significantly
constricted since my time of working with the agency. It is
based on a number of things, market conditions, housing
markets. It can be based on softwood lumber that is coming in
from other places like Canada. It can be based on not having
local supply. That is usually the issue that can be associated
with us.
We generally supply somewhere around six percent of the
softwood in the United States. For some mills, they have a very
diversified area. They draw from private lands, state lands,
from federal lands. Other areas are very dependent on federal
lands. When there is a decrease in what we offer, it affects
their ability to stay open.
Senator Marshall. Okay. Thank you so much. I yield back.
Chairman Boozman. Thank you. Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. French, for being
with the Committee today. Thank you, Chair Boozman, and also
our Ranking Member for holding this hearing.
Before I get to my questions, what I would like to do is to
highlight two small forestry and lands issues that are really
important in Minnesota that I am working on. The first is my
bipartisan Thye-Blatnik Act. This is a law which ensures that
these counties in far northern Minnesota--Lake and Cook and St.
Louis Counties--receive a source of revenue for hosting federal
forests. They have done this for decades. This is a small bill
with a technical fix that would make a huge difference to these
counties. It passed through the Senate last year, and we need
to move it again this year.
The second bill is a House bill, also bipartisan, passed
the House earlier this year, which would just basically
facilitate a land exchange between Chippewa National Forest and
land held by this family lodge, Bowen Lodge. The exchange is
supported by the local community, supported by the local tribal
nation, Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe. Since it has passed the
House, it also needs a path here in the Senate.
Now, I raise this because I think that it would be smart
for us to figure out if we can work together with the Forest
Service on a lands package in this Committee before too long. I
think it would just make sense that if we are working on this
forest management legislation, that we find a way to move some
of these noncontroversial and non-expensive bills at the same
time. I wanted to raise that and appreciate your attention.
Chairman Boozman. No, we appreciate that. I understand
totally. I think every Member of Congress understands these
things are much more difficult than they should be, so we will
help you where we can.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
attention to that, Mr. Chair.
Let me turn to my questions, Mr. French. I want to ask you
about an issue, a Minnesota issue. I have heard from our folks
in Minnesota that the Department of Government Efficiency is
blocking contracts to distribute seedlings for reforestation in
the Chippewa and Superior National Forests in Minnesota. As I
am sure you know, these seedlings are harvested and planted to
grow into the next generation of trees that support our timber
industry. The work is time-sensitive, especially in places like
Minnesota, where the planning window depends on a lot of
extraneous factors like weather and snowpack and so forth.
Mr. French, can you tell me now or could you respond to me
when you can, what does the Forest Service plan to do to
address these delays and to make sure that seedling plantings
can occur on a schedule that will preserve forest health?
Mr. French. Thank you, Senator. For all the contracts and
other mechanisms that are being reviewed through the Office of
Government Efficiency, we are batching those and the priority
things such as disaster response, those things that are time-
sensitive, such as reforestation, seedlings, and working very
closely with them to get them moving and through the review
process.
Senator Smith. Could we follow-up and see about the
specific issue and what we can do to make sure that this
happens?
Mr. French. Of course.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much. The second issue is
related to the spongy moth.
Mr. French. Okay.
Senator Smith. Okay? Just last month, the Minnesota
Department of Agriculture had to cancel plans to treat our
forests against this invasive species because federal funding
did not come through. Spongy moths cause millions of dollars in
damage to forests across the eastern United States, and now
they are moving westward. As you may well know, these moths eat
all of the leaves off the trees. That kills the trees and then,
of course, it increases the likelihood of wildfire as a result.
We are about, sadly, to miss the small window of time where we
can effectively treat our forests while the caterpillars are
still small. This is a problem. It puts livelihoods and our
entire forests at risk. My question is, how does the Forest
Service plan to address forest health and wildfire risk for
invasive species like this when we are seeing these funds being
cut and personnel being cut?
Mr. French. I think, you know, in terms of the funds you
are talking about, which essentially become assistance for
states for dealing with forest health issues, we are
advocating, as are state foresters across the country, for the
importance of addressing forest health issues and the role that
these funds play.
Senator Smith. That advocacy is useful, of course, but
advocacy without the funds to accomplish the work will not
accomplish the work. I am not going to put you on the spot
because I understand the position----
Mr. French. That is fine.
Senator Smith [continuing]. that you are in, but, I mean,
would you agree that we need to be able to figure out how to
pay for this stuff?
Mr. French. I would say is that in the 2026 budget that the
President has released, they have made the policy oversight
about how they want to see those funds very clear. In the
current set of funds, they are going through reviews through
the Office of Government Efficiency. We continue to deliver on
those that we have already made commitments on and advocate for
why they are important for broader forest health.
Senator Smith. Well, this will be a conversation that will
continue. This to me is an example of something that is very
economically sensible to make this investment in order to
protect forests so that we can then get the economic benefit
from these forests down the road.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Boozman. Thank you. Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do not want to spend too much of my time on it, but I did
want to tell the Senator from West Virginia that Roger Marshall
did just take off on his scooter, so in case his staff wanted
to get out there and commandeer it. Yes. I tried to stop him,
but he pushed me down.
First off, Mr. French, thanks for being here. Thanks for
the work that you do. You have been out to our state a number
of times. You have been responsive, you have taken action, and
I want you to know we appreciate it very much.
Though in regard to this issue, wildfires, you know, we
always think of those as forest fires, you know, Smokey Bear
and all that stuff. We had over 100,000 acres burned in North
Dakota on the grasslands. It not only killed cattle, but two
people were killed in those fires. These grassland fires are a
real thing. They move, you know, lightning quick----
Mr. French. Very fast.
Senator Hoeven [continuing]. and we have dry conditions. I
know you know about it. That leads to my first question, which
is in the Fix Our Forests Act, it primarily, you know, focuses
on forest fires, but talk to me about what it is going to do to
prevent and reduce fires in our grasslands.
Mr. French. Okay. You know, there is not really the
statutory authorities in Fix Our Forests that would be helpful
for streamlining, let's say, the NEPA side of things there, but
it does provide us mechanisms working with the state and GNA to
help. It has some very specific pieces around prescribed fire
that would be very helpful. The Intelligence Center would help
us be more responsive to fires across the country so that we
are able to move resources into those areas, pre-stage them
more quickly.
Senator Hoeven. The Chairman asked you right off the jump
there about categorical exclusion. Does that help us at all? Is
there any CE authority that would help us in terms of some of
the flexibilities and things that we are looking for in the
grasslands?
Mr. French. In the grasslands? If we are going to do
pretreatment of those areas, it can.
Senator Hoeven. Okay. Well, that would be good. Back then
on the forest side, how about, you know, if you are going to
get in and, you know, cut trees out of there to try to mitigate
fires, is there a place for that wood to go? Is that part of
the plan? Because, you know, as you cut those trees down, that
wood has got to have a home.
Mr. French. Yep. In some places, we have a pretty robust
forest products industry that we can move trees to. In other
places, we are pretty challenged because we have lost that
industry.
There are programs that we administer right now that help
subsidize transportation, especially of low-value products that
is very helpful. We offer loans that can help retool mills so
that they can handle more variety of wood products. I would say
that investments in the wood products industry and creating
predictable supply for them is probably the most critical thing
to keep them sustainable and thriving.
Senator Hoeven. Okay. Then, have you done any cost
estimates? Wildfire suppression costs have increased about 80
percent over the past decade. Obviously, we are getting more of
these fires all the time. Have you done any anticipated cost
savings with the Fix Our Forests Act?
Mr. French. I am not familiar with what those would be, and
we could certainly get back with you.
Senator Hoeven. Okay. Then both President Trump and
actually Governor Newsom out in California have taken emergency
action on, you know, permitting some of this wildfire
mitigation work to go forward. Are those orders something that
is also covered on a permanent basis by this legislation so we
would see some of those things on a permanent basis?
Mr. French. Yes, that is one of the strengths of this bill
is it actually takes some of the things that we do for
emergencies that allow us to move more quickly and codifies
them, and that is very helpful for us.
Senator Hoeven. Is there anything else that is not in this
bill that you want to bring up or would recommend that should
be included or considered for this legislation?
Mr. French. Well, I could talk your ear off on a set of
things that would make us more effective and efficient on any
bills. I would say the one thing here is I do think that the
hazard tree removal CE that the Senate has laid out for us here
would be more effective if it was statutorily given to us by
Congress rather than having us promulgated through regulation.
Senator Hoeven. Okay. Thank you very much. Again, thanks
for being here, and thanks for the good work that you do.
Mr. French. Thanks.
Chairman Boozman. The Ranking Member on Forestry----
Senator Bennet. Thank you.
Chairman Boozman [continuing]. Senator Bennet.
Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. and I am glad I
was here for Senator Hoeven's questions.
Mr. French, thank you for joining us here today. I know how
experienced you are, and I am grateful that you are in the role
that you are in.
Protecting our forest, our watersheds, and our communities
from increasingly severe wildfires in the West is getting more
critical every single day. I really commend the hard work of
the sponsors of this bill, including my friend and my fellow
Senator from Colorado, John Hickenlooper. I think this bill is
a meaningful attempt to put forward solutions and find a path
forward on addressing wildfires that put communities like
Colorado at risk.
I want to say to the Chairman, though, and I would have
said this in front of my friend, John Hickenlooper, I think it
is very important for this Committee to be exercising the
jurisdiction that we are over this bill. I think this is a
place where we can bring the voice of Senator Hoeven and others
to make sure that in the end this is a product that we can all
be proud of, and I look forward to working with you on that. I
am grateful that you are having this hearing.
I know for most people here, we are familiar with the role
of the Forest Service when it comes to reducing the risk of
wildfires in the West and also fighting fires themselves, but
could you talk a little bit about the importance of that, Mr.
French?
My next question is going to be about the reductions we
have seen in forests on the Western Slope of Colorado and
throughout the Rocky Mountain West and the deep concern that
communities have in my state and throughout the Rocky Mountains
that we may not have the personnel that we need as this fire
season starts.
Mr. French. Thank you, Senator. Wildfire, as I said
earlier, is completely integrated across our entire agency. I
started my career in southern Arizona and spent 10 years in my
first permanent position in wildfire, and you learn when you
are in a position like that that when you are running a local
engine or you are part of a shot crew, that those communities
really depend on you to know the land, to respond quickly, and
to be able to essentially take care of things in a way that are
thoughtful about the community and neighbors that you are a
part of.
As we have seen wildfire grow across the agency, the
interagency approaches and the role that we play in
coordinating those have become incredibly important. Forest
Service manages 75 percent of the wildfire resources in this
country. Almost all the aerial contracts that we have that
states and other federal agencies depend on.
More importantly, when you look at that system, we are the
people that, in most of your forest communities where we have
large fires, they are the ones staffing along with folks like
CAL FIRE and others, that local station that is providing a
response that people have come to depend on.
I will kind of get to your second question maybe
preemptively is that during the workforce reshaping that we
have been asked to do, we have made it a priority to exempt our
primary firefighters, and we have made it a priority to
essentially look at other skillsets in the agency that are
being left as people are taking some of the programs right now
of prioritizing our workforce as the most important piece that
we need to do is provide adequate fire suppression response.
Senator Bennet. I appreciate that. It has been deeply,
deeply disappointing to us to see the numbers of Forest Service
personnel with red cards who have been separated from the
agency at this moment. I think I heard you use the word primary
when you described the firefighters who were being protected.
My view is that those red card holders are the backbone of our
fire suppression efforts, and they are going to be hard to
replace. We are already counting on local communities, as you
know, in partnerships in places like the White River and other
forests in Colorado, and now more of the burden is actually
going to fall on us, I think, and that is going to be a real
challenge for local communities.
That brings me to my second question if the Chairman will
let me ask it. I see the leader is here. Just one more.
As you were saying, I think it is important to have local
knowledge and important to have regional knowledge. Colorado
communities really know the risk of wildfire well. We have been
devastated in recent years by the Cameron Peak, these
troublesome--and Pine Gulch fires, but we also have a long
track record of working successfully to establish the kind of
partnerships that I was just talking about between state,
local, and federal partners to reduce wildfire risk. It is in
that connection that I have heard from 30 local officials just
last week in my state that provisions of the Fix Our Forests
Act might undermine their ability to meaningfully engage with
their federal partners in the development of forest projects.
I am worried that the decisions are going to be made by the
bureaucracy in Washington, DC, without the input of people on
the ground in Colorado and in these communities that have been
engaged with these incredible partnerships with the U.S. Forest
Service all these years.
I would ask you, Mr. French, whether you believe that, as
we consider this, the Forest Service can guarantee that this
bill is not going to limit opportunities for local communities
to continue to engage--the contribution of local communities in
these decisions that are, of course, most important to them
than anyone else.
Mr. French. Yep, I can. I mean, that is not who we are. We
are a part of these communities, and when we are designing
projects and when we are advocating for projects, we have got
to do that in concert with the community that we are a part of.
I do not see anything in Fix Our Forests that would change that
commitment of working collaboratively with our local
governments and with the people that are there. I get it
changes some of the fixed processes, but that does not change
sitting down in a town meeting, talking about what needs to be
done up the canyon, and taking care of it.
That is who we are as an agency. We are a very local,
decision-made-type approach with our districts and our forests.
These lands will persist when they are relevant to the
communities they are a part of. If we do not make sure that we
are doing that, then anything we do is out of step.
I would also just say on the firefighter piece, we are
very, very, very cognizant of the experience and skillsets that
have walked out the door. We are very focused on how to adapt
and manage through that, especially with our state and other
federal partners. I am not going to say it is easy----
Senator Bennet. Yes.
Mr. French [continuing]. but we are prepared.
Senator Bennet. Okay. Well, thank you for your testimony,
and thank you for your long service as well.
Mr. French. You are welcome.
Senator Bennet. I look forward to our work together.
Mr. French. Thanks.
Chairman Boozman. Senator Justice.
Senator Justice. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, Mr. French. Thank you for coming.
I normally start off, you know, have hopefully a good
statement, and then I ask a question. I am going to lead off
with just this question because it is going to lead me to where
I think we should go, and that is just this. In regard to all
the aspect of our forests today, especially our fires, you
know, because we are looking at a Fix Our Forests Act. If we
are deeply considering the fire component and then considering
our forest component, are we winning the battle?
Mr. French. I think we are making a good try but not yet.
Senator Justice. I know you are brutally honest, but I
would think if we were all brutally honest, we would say, no
way, we are not winning this war.
If I could just tell you that I am the most impatient guy
in the room, I mean, really and truly. I rolled in up here with
white hair, and I am not here for any reason that would be
anything to do with me. I can tell you we have got a big
problem. That is all there is to it. You know, when I was the
Governor of West Virginia, I was the Governor for eight years.
It was a big-time honor and everything. A lot of times people
would say to me, they would say, what is the biggest
responsibility you have? I would say the same is true right now
for this. Get the economics right because the economics drives
a lot of this boat, and we are missing it in a lot of ways.
You see, we have got all kinds of forest problems. I am an
outdoor guy. I am a wildlife guy. I can absolutely sit and talk
that with anybody because I have done it over and over and
over. With all that being said, if you are the most impatient
guy and you do not want anything, and you are a real believer
in economics being upside down, in this country today we have
lost our flooring, cabinetry. We have lost our furniture
business. All of this stuff is going on in every country of the
world, but it is not going on here.
Right here, right in this right here, all this carbon is
frozen. If everybody is worried about the carbon and
everything, think about what happens with a forest fire. All
this is frozen. We have all kinds of issues with the health of
our forest today, and they are affecting our wildlife, and they
are affecting so many different things, our waters and on and
on and on. Yet in West Virginia, we are cutting 1/3 of our
growth, 1/3 of our annual growth, you know? The trees are
growing three times faster than we are cutting them. They are
falling on the ground. They are causing all kinds of issues. As
soon as a small fire goes through, all the carbon is released
right into the sky when it could be frozen right here. We could
have industry right here, and we could have jobs right here,
and we could have healthy forests right here. We have got to
get the economics right. I will promise you, at the end of the
day, the economics are upside down, and I will promise you we
are losing the battle.
Now, how do we get the economics right? There is all kinds
of different ways, but our forests in West Virginia alone
cleanup an equivalency of 21 coal-fired power plants a year. It
is unbelievable what they do. That is our hardwoods. You know,
there are issues all across this country with all kinds of
different things, but our forests should be applauded every day
for what they do. Our forests are doing so much for all of us,
it is off the chart. I am a real believer in this. Play to your
strengths. For God's sakes, you have a winning team. You have
the most winning team on the planet.
The last thing I would tell you is just this. Now, think
about it. Think about West Virginia for just one second. Think
about Jim Justice in West Virginia. I am a basketball coach.
West Virginia has great, great, great people, unbelievable
natural resources, four of the greatest seasons on the planet,
and it is located within a rocks throw of 2/3 of the population
of the country. It really is. Yet, we continually struggled
with being dead last. How could it be? You have got the same
kind of team.
Now, we have got to do something about it. We have got to
come up with an idea, an idea to drive the economics right, to
make the forest healthy again. We have got to come up with an
idea. You know, just to say, well, we need to do this about the
fire or this about--we are not going anywhere. We have to come
up with a real, live idea and an idea that would be something
along the lines of, if we could find a way to create some level
of--and God forbid this is a taboo, bad name--but a subsidy to
credit our forest, to credit what our forest are giving us that
would bridge us to absolutely doing something that would bring
health to our forest.
We have got to come up with something, and at the end of
the day, it is all going to be one thing, absolutely, period.
You wait and see. It will be driven by the economics. Get the
economics right.
Thank you so much, sir.
Chairman Boozman. Thank you. Senator Schiff.
Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate your being here. I represent California, and
in particular two areas that have been very recently devastated
by fire, so this is an issue that is near and dear to my
constituents. I am trying to figure out a way to phrase this
question in a way that you can answer it.
Mr. French. Okay.
Senator Schiff. Let me just posit both my interest and my
concern. My interest is in making sure that we can better
manage our forests so that we can reduce the incidence of fire
and how devastating those fires are. I appreciate all the
important work that has been done to improve the Fix Our
Forests Act since it left the House.
My concern is that we are laying off federal firefighters.
We are clawing back grants that are used for brush clearance. A
lot of the laudable things that are established in the Fix Our
Forests Act are not funded with any additional money, so there
are laudable collaborative agencies established but nothing to
provide them resources.
My concern is that the bill is used to accelerate the
timber industry without a particular focus on reducing fire.
Now, some of the timber that will be harvested will be useful
to be harvested in terms of making our forests more resilient,
but of course there will be interest in the timber industry to
go beyond that and harvest timber having nothing to do with
fire mitigation. That is not my priority. It is the priority
set out in some of the executive orders, but that is not my
priority.
I guess my question to you is, are there any safeguards in
this legislation? What would a safeguard look like to make sure
that this is really about fire mitigation and not just about
timber harvesting? That is my question, and I know there are
some pitfalls in how you can answer that, but to whatever
degree you can answer it, I would welcome your answer.
Mr. French. Yes, I appreciate the question, Senator. You
know, as stated before, I have worked for the agency for 34
years. I have worked in multiple places in the agency. I was
trained as a biologist. I have worked in forestry and fire,
recreation, wilderness, the whole gamut. I know our system. I
am also acutely aware of the issues in California and the
situation of the health of our forests and the way our
communities right now are at risk.
There are so many safeguards in our system right now,
whether it is the forest plan that limits what you can do or
not do on the ground, regardless of what Fix Our Forests says.
Any project we put out there has to follow the safeguards and
the parameters that are established in that forest plan. What
does that mean? That means there are certain areas you cannot
treat. There are buffers that you have to put around creeks.
There are species that you have to thin in different ways in
order to meet the outcomes, like the California spotted owl. It
is a broad safeguard for any project we are doing.
We are still, under this bill, on any project we do, we
have to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service. We have to
consult with NOAA fisheries. We have to consult with the EPA
for the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act with our state and
local regulatory agencies. All of that still stays. Like I
said, there are multiple, multiple requirements that we have to
meet in here in order to do any one of these projects.
In the last years, if you look at the number of acres that
we have treated, it has greatly increased, and that is
addressing fire. That is under multiple Administrations. Yet
the number of sawlogs we produce have actually gone down.
Because the focus of most of our work is on restoration, if you
are reducing wildland fire risk or you are trying to restore
forests for healthy forests, you are removing a vast amount of
material that is not actually commercial. We do need
investments in the forest products industry in biomass and low-
value wood in order to utilize that.
If you look at the amount of material that we remove
through timber sales, we harvest less than 1/10 of 1 percent of
our national forests on any given year. It is somewhere between
200,000 and 250,000 acres. That is such a low number when you
look at what our forest plans actually would allow.
I tell you this as a lifelong career person, as an advocate
for our forests, for the habitat within our forests. We do
things well and right, and there are just a litany of
safeguards that are in place. Most of the arguments that I see
around our work is where is it occurring, is it happening fast
enough, and whether we philosophically agree that removing
material or timber harvest is appropriate on a national forest.
Senator Schiff. Thank you. If there is time later, I would
love to ask another question. Thank you.
Chairman Boozman. Senator McConnell.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If people around the world have heard of Kentucky, it is
usually for two reasons, the Kentucky Derby, which was last
Saturday, and bourbon. Bourbon has a lot of challenges right
now because of the tariff wars. For example, up in Canada, they
have taken bourbon off the shelves, so I think it is safe to
say people in that iconic Kentucky industry are not happy about
the tariff wars and hope that it will be over soon.
I want to raise something I am sure no one has heard of.
Our iconic bourbon industry is critical to us. Ninety-five
percent of the bourbon in the world is made in Kentucky. The $9
billion industry supports agriculture, forestry, manufacturing,
distilling, bottling, construction, and transportation jobs,
just to name a few.
Kentucky bourbon is synonymous with the white oak tree,
which is used to age our state's signature spirit in wooden
barrels. Unfortunately, 75 percent of the Nation's white oak
population is rated as mature, meaning that there will be a
shortage of white oaks within 30 years.
Congress must act to ensure the preservation of this
invaluable resource, so in February, I introduced the White Oak
Resiliency Act with Senator Warner. The bill requires the
Department of Interior, USDA, and the Forest Service to
coordinate research and conservation efforts, ensuring the
white oak a stable supply and a viable future. I am pleased to
see, Mr. Chairman, that my bill is included in the underlying
act.
Mr. French, in your written testimony, you stated that USDA
was supportive of the White Oak Resilience subtitle but would
like to work with the Committee on minor technical adjustments.
What changes would USDA like to see regarding white oak
provisions?
Mr. French. Thank you, Senator. We are very supportive,
especially with the loss that we are seeing across the country.
It is minor stuff in the way it is written that would make it
more effective within the context of the laws we have right
now. What I mean by that is the National Forest Management Act
and some other pieces, it is pretty minor, but it does not
change any of the broader intent of what we are asking.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Boozman. Thank you. Senator Welch.
Senator Welch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much for the good work you do.
I am hoping we get this bill to a place where I can vote on
it. One of the changes that is made is the 10,000-acre
designation.
Mr. French. Sure.
Senator Welch. In Vermont where we do not have the vast
expanses of these forests that are so typical in the western
States, that would mean that literally all but one of our
projects would be in the exemption. We are not 10,000 acres. Is
there a way that you could suggest where it would not be a one-
size-fits-all? I mean, a lower number, I think, would be
appropriate for Vermont, but I would not want Vermont to
interfere with what would be good for California or good for
Colorado. A couple of our sponsors are from there. Could you
speak to that? We would like to have public participation but
not have it get in the way also of a legitimate desire to move
ahead.
Mr. French. Yes, thank you, Senator. I know that forest
well. I spent time in Manchester as the district ranger there.
Senator Welch. Yes. Beautiful.
Mr. French. I think that if you look at how these CEs are
set up, the context of how they would be used will vary from
each geographic place. If I am a forester up in Vermont and I
am looking at something, one, I may not even be able to fit
within these categories because of the way they are set up for
wildfire risk and some of the other pieces. It does not mean
that you have to do 10,000 acres. What it essentially means is
it is not that it is excluded from NEPA. It just means that it
fits within a category that is not considered significant.----
Senator Welch. This is what I do not understand. It is not
significant if less than 10,000 acres is excluded from the
inquiry about significance, right?
Mr. French. Right.
Senator Welch. What I am saying is that that would mean
that basically any project in Vermont would be in that
category.
Mr. French. If it qualifies for the parameters of what that
category is. My knowledge of projects up there, many of them
would not. In fact, probably most would not.
The other thing about this is that from----
Senator Welch. Can you elaborate a little bit on that so I
understand?
Mr. French. Yes. I mean, so if you look at the way these
are set up, they are specifically for things like hazard tree
removal or they are specifically if you are reducing wildland
fire risk within these parameters while maintaining certain
size classes and things like that. That would not be applicable
in most places on the Green Mountain National Forest.
The other thing to recognize here, too, is that, you know--
and we will get into a little bit of the NEPA side of things--
most of the projects that are done--in fact, all of the
projects, I think, that are done on the Green Mountain use
environmental assessments. They are from, you know, thousands
of acres. Every one of those environmental assessments come to
a singular conclusion, a finding of no significant impact,
okay? That is essentially what a categorical exclusion is
saying, is that projects up to a certain size under certain
conditions will not be significant if you meet ESA, if you meet
Clean Water Act, and you go through a set of tests called
extraordinary circumstances that look to see what are the
effects on floodplains, what are the effects on wilderness
areas. It goes through an entire series to make sure that it is
actually routinely not significant.
Senator Welch. Okay. Let me get to just two other things.
Thank you for that.
Mr. French. Yes, you are welcome.
Senator Welch. Along the lines of Senator Schiff, I am
having a hard time dealing with the conflict of 5,200 Forest
Service folks having left their jobs or been fired or whatever
term it is we want to use. We have got about 5,200 fewer
people, so the work that needs to be done, we do not have the
people to do it. I would also respect that you cannot
necessarily answer that question, but it seems pretty obvious.
If you do not have the personnel, the work's not going to get
done.
Mr. French. Well, right now, we have seen a decline of
about 25 percent of our non-fire workforce across the agency
for folks that have voluntarily taken the deferred resignation
and other programs. It is not the same in all places. We have
some places where we have lost considerable staff and other
places----
Senator Welch. Well, as we proceed, I mean, at some point
we are going to want to get an assessment of how this is
affecting the functionality----
Mr. French. Of course.
Senator Welch [continuing]. of the work that you do, and
that is not your decision.
The third thing is going from 6 years to 150 days----
Mr. French. Say that again, 6 years to 150 days?
Senator Welch. Well, this is on the judicial review.
Mr. French. Okay.
Senator Welch. This bill, as I understand it, used to be
six years. It will go down to 150 days. I am flexible on that.
There is no magic in the number, but that is a big drop, and
that is a period of time within which affected groups can bring
their case forward. Do you have any experience or examples of
how that reduction from 6 years to 150 days will be helpful or
harmful?
Mr. French. I mean, I cannot give you anything
specifically, but I can generally tell you that for projects
that are forest management, veg management, and honestly,
recreation as well--let me put it to you this way. We win about
80 percent of our cases, but----
Senator Welch. You what?
Mr. French. We win about 80 percent of the litigation that
is brought against us on our projects. That is a pretty good
record. The consequences that we see is that often those
projects will take anywhere from four, five, or six years to be
implemented once they have gone through their analysis as they
get through the court system. I think that is really a question
for Congress and communities of whether that timeframe,
especially if you are trying to do wildland fuels risk
reduction to a community that is at risk is acceptable.
Senator Welch. Thank you.
Mr. French. You are welcome.
Senator Welch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Boozman. Senator Schiff.
Senator Schiff. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity, and really following up on Senator Welch's
questions, which are largely what I wanted to explore further.
Did I understand you to say there was a 25 percent reduction in
the workforce?
Mr. French. Non-fire workforce. The agency has about 35,000
employees. We have exempted all of the wildland primary
firefighters from the workforce reshaping. That workforce is in
place. It is the non-fire workforce that can also help support
the fire workforce where there has been a little over 5,000
positions that are people that have taken the voluntary outs.
Senator Schiff. That is really striking. One-fourth of the
non-fire workforce----
Mr. French. Non-fire workforce.
Senator Schiff [continuing]. have taken advantage of the
fork in the road to leave the Forest Service?
Mr. French. That is currently what we are seeing?
Senator Schiff. Then you have got the additional people
that got the probationary letter, or have they been rehired?
Mr. French. All the probationary employees have been
rehired if they chose to come back.
Senator Schiff. I think the budget includes another cut to
the Forest Service, does it not?
Mr. French. It cuts us down about 63 percent.
Senator Schiff. About 63 percent.
Mr. French. I believe so, on the current budget.
Senator Schiff. How would it be possible to do anything
other than timber harvesting contemplated on this bill with
those kind of reductions?
Mr. French. We are going to need a lot of help from our
state partners, our community partners, and others in the work
that we do.
Senator Schiff. I mean, do your state partners do the kind
of other mitigation work that we are talking about in the
national forests?
Mr. French. Through Good Neighbor, they do, yes.
Senator Schiff. Wow, that is just staggering.
One last question to follow-up on Senator Welch's question
because I had the same concern about going from 6 years to 150
days. Generally, how soon after there is a decision is
litigation initiated? That is, it may take a long time to get
through the suits that are brought, but generally how soon
after decision is litigation brought? Is the problem more how
long it takes to get to the end of the litigation than the
length of period after which you can file suit?
Mr. French. I do not have that data, but we can follow-up
with you with the specifics on that. What I can tell you is,
you know, there are three general effects that we see. The
first is it increases our costs considerably in areas that are
highly litigious in terms of the price per unit of what we are
trying to deliver like a fuels reduction, a trail, or a timber
volume. It increases the time considerably in those areas for
the amount of work you have to do to get yourself prepared for
a project to hit litigation, so you are doing a higher level
analysis with more analysis so that you do better within the
court system. The cost per project is generally going to be
$100,000 or so more than a place that we do not have a
litigation.
Then generally what we are going to see is that for those
areas where we have high litigation, like I think there is
about 360 million board feet of timber product that is held up
in Region One right now under litigation, generally with
injunctions, those might last, you know, three to six years. It
is that period of time and the unpredictability it can create
to the forest products industry but also to the communities
that are looking for that work.
Senator Schiff. Let me ask you one other thing. I was in
the far north of the state and visited one of the dead forests
where there was aerial seeding. The forest--I think it was
mostly spruce that grew up--was so dense, light could not get
to the forest floor, and it is essentially a dead forest. There
are a lot of trees still standing in that dead forest that have
no limbs that are crowding out the rebirth of redwoods. What
has impeded the ability to log those trees? Why are they still
standing? Is it just not lucrative enough for the timber
industry?
Mr. French. Well, I mean, no. I mean, this is a huge issue
for us. You know, and I talked earlier about areas that we have
fires--and you have seen this--from northern California to
southern California. Like, look at those fires up the Feather
River Canyon that go up to Quincy and places like that. We
cannot get in there effectively and salvage that timber.
The importance of doing that, by the way, is not just about
driving economic value for what is left in those logs, but it
is about going in there and reforesting. It is about removing
hazard trees where people cannot drive on roads. Like, I cannot
put a crew in there to plant trees because of the risk of those
trees falling on them, so you have to use aerial seeding.
We cannot go in and effectively salvage those trees because
we generally get sued. Those trees lose their value about a
year to two years after the fire has gone through. If I put all
the effort into doing an EA or an EIS that is going to take us
somewhere between a year and a year and a half, and then we get
sued, which is pretty common on salvage sales, all the value is
lost, and we have put all that effort in and hundreds of
thousands of dollars to get that thing cleared, and then nobody
will buy it because all the wood's deteriorated. You have to
move quickly to salvage timber.
What you saw, if you look at like what Sierra Pacific and
some of the other local entities do in California, they will be
in there within six months to a year to remove that timber. We
have even tried to take some of that timber and move it out of
state to mills that need wood because there was so much left
over from fires.
Honestly, the issue is the amount of time it takes it to
get through the clearance process for NEPA and all the other
regulatory pieces we have, and then litigation that keeps us
from actually doing it at scale. It is one of the biggest
criticisms that industry has on us is all that standing dead
timber.
Senator Schiff. Thank you.
Mr. French. You are welcome.
Senator Schiff. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate the added
time.
Chairman Boozman. Thank you. Senator Klobuchar?
Senator Klobuchar. No, I do not have anything to add. I
just wanted to, Senator Schiff, thank you for your questions.
We know how personal all this is in your state, and just thank
our Committee Members for working well on this issue with your
Committee Members as well, Senator Boozman, so thank you.
Senator Schiff. Thank you very much.
Chairman Boozman. Thank you again, Mr. French, for your
time and insights, to our Committee Members for your
participation in today's important hearing.
I request unanimous consent to submit letters of support
for FOFA to the Committee record. Without objection, so moved.
[The letters can be found on pages 32-35 in the appendix.]
Chairman Boozman. Questions for the record are due
Thursday, May 8th, by close of business, and the hearing record
will remain open for five business days.
Again, thanks to you, and thanks to the Committee for, I
think, a really thoughtful, really good hearing today.
With that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
May 6, 2025
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
May 6, 2025
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
May 6, 2025
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]