[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

THE 2021 WILDLAND FIRE YEAR: RESPONDING
TO AND MITIGATING THREATS TO
COMMUNITIES

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

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

SEPTEMBER 29, 2021

__________

Serial No. 117-17

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

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

__________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
47-306 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia, Chairman

JIM COSTA, California GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania,
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts Ranking Minority Member
FILEMON VELA, Texas AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina, Vice ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
Chair Arkansas
ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York DOUG LaMALFA, California
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
Northern Mariana Islands TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire DON BACON, Nebraska
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona CHRIS JACOBS, New York
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
RO KHANNA, California MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida TRACEY MANN, Kansas
J. LUIS CORREA, California RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota MARY E. MILLER, Illinois
JOSH HARDER, California BARRY MOORE, Alabama
CYNTHIA AXNE, Iowa KAT CAMMACK, Florida
KIM SCHRIER, Washington MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
JIMMY PANETTA, California JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia

______

Anne Simmons, Staff Director

Parish Braden, Minority Staff Director

______

Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry

ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia, Chair

FILEMON VELA, Texas DOUG LaMALFA, California, Ranking
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine Minority Member
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
JIMMY PANETTA, California TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
J. LUIS CORREA, California DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington MARY E. MILLER, Illinois
BARRY MOORE, Alabama

Paul Babbitt, Subcommittee Staff Director

(ii)

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page
LaMalfa, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from California,
opening statement.............................................. 5
Submitted map................................................ 42
Spanberger, Hon. Abigail Davis, a Representative in Congress from
Virginia, opening statement.................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Submitted letter on behalf of Jessica Turner, Executive
Director, Outdoor Recreation Roundtable.................... 41
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
Pennsylvania, opening statement................................ 6

Witness

Moore, Randy, Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Submitted questions.......................................... 43

THE 2021 WILDLAND FIRE YEAR:
RESPONDING TO AND MITIGATING.
THREATS TO COMMUNITIES

----------

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2021

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., via
Zoom, Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger [Chair of the Subcommittee]
presiding.
Members present: Representatives Spanberger, Pingree,
Kuster, O'Halleran, Panetta, Schrier, Costa, LaMalfa, Allen,
Johnson, Miller, Moore, and Thompson.
Staff present: Lyron Blum-Evitts, Jacqueline Emanuel, Ross
Hettervig, Josh Lobert, Ashley Smith, Paul Babbitt, Parish
Braden, John Busovsky, Caleb Crosswhite, Josh Maxwell, Patricia
Straughn, and Dana Sandman.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM VIRGINIA

The Chair. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation
and Forestry entitled, The 2021 Wildland Fire Year: Responding
to and Mitigating Threats to Communities, will come to order.
Welcome, and thank you for joining today's hearing. After brief
opening remarks, Members will receive testimony from our
witness today, and then the hearing will be open to questions.
Members will be recognized in order of seniority, alternating
between Majority and Minority Members, and in order of arrival,
for those Members who have joined us after the hearing was
called to order. When you are recognized, you will be asked to
unmute your microphone, and will have 5 minutes to ask your
questions or make a comment. If you are not speaking, I ask
that you remain muted in order to minimize background noise. In
order to get as many questions as possible the timer will stay
consistently visible on your screen.
I want to thank everyone for joining us today for this very
important and timely hearing on the 2021 wildfire season. We
have all seen the heartbreaking footage of the wildfires that
continue to rage in the West, and have been raging in the West
so far this year. The fires are terrifying, and I stand ready
to do whatever I can as Chair of this Subcommittee to ensure
that the Forest Service has the resources, the personnel, and
the tools they need to prepare for future fires, and respond to
the wildland fires already raging. It is also imperative that
we make sure firefighters on the ground are compensated fairly,
and given adequate time away from this intense and dangerous
work, and I think I speak for everyone here today when I say
that America's firefighters embody our nation's highest ideals
of courage, commitment, and selflessness towards their fellow
Americans.
Unfortunately, as we head into the heart of wildfire
seasons, or, as it has become, wildfire years after years, we
are expected to have yet another unprecedented year of
dangerous and deadly wildfires ahead of us. And as we speak,
there are currently more than 60 wildfires raging in the United
States across 3 million acres of land, and in much of the land
represented by some of the Members of this Subcommittee, and
certainly Members of the larger Committee. While the volume of
wildfires may be unprecedented, the story before us is a
familiar one. In the short time that I have chaired this
Subcommittee, I have presided over a wildfire hearing each year
that begins with news exactly about what has happened in that
year's wildfire season, and each year it is worse than the
last.
In fact, it was almost exactly a year ago that we sat here
and had a hearing nearly identical as the Rattlesnake, the
Creek, the SCU Lightning Complex, and the El Dorado Fires,
among others, devastated the western United States. And at that
hearing, I compared the situation in the West to another
environmental crisis that faced much of the United States in
the 1930s, the Dust Bowl. And during that period there was a
sense that Congress did not understand the severity of the
problems facing America's farmers and families living in the
midst of an environmental crisis. And despite demands for
action by both the Administration and those impacted by the
dust storm, for years Congress failed to act in a comprehensive
manner, and it was not until March of 1935 when the dust from
the Midwest reached the Capitol steps, and lawmakers were
forced to see it and experience it with their own eyes, that a
compromise could be reached on what became the first Federal
conservation bill, the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment
Act of 1936 (Pub. L. 74-461).
It should not take the ash of these wildfires, or the
debris and floodwaters of hurricanes ravaging our coasts, or
the severe heat felt by millions across the nation and across
the globe on a daily basis--it should not take that reaching
the Capitol steps for us, for Congress, to take action on the
environmental crisis we are currently facing. Through the House
Agriculture Committee section of the proposed Build Back Better
Act (H.R. 5376), the Committee is taking action. This bill,
marked up by this Committee just a few weeks ago, contains $14
billion for hazardous fuel treatments on National Forest System
lands, $1 billion for critical vegetation management, $9
billion in grants for state and private forestry for hazardous
fuel treatments, millions of dollars in grants for recovery and
rehabilitation of areas affected by wildfires, $50 million for
post-fire recovery plans, and would remove the cap on the
Reforestation Trust Fund, building on the REPLANT Act (H.R.
2049), which was introduced by our colleague, Congressman
Panetta, who serves on this Subcommittee. And this is a piece
of legislation that I am proud to co-lead, and I know the
Ranking Member is also a co-lead of this important legislation.
What is more, this bill squarely takes aim at combating the
crisis by investing in clean energy jobs, climate-smart
conservation practices at USDA, and the creation of a Civilian
Climate Corps, as called for in my bill, the Climate
Stewardship Act (H.R. 2534). Of course, climate is not the only
factor contributing to the intensity of wildfires in the
wildfire seasons. We know that many factors are involved in the
current wildfires and are wildfire risks. Encroachment of
housing developments on forested wildlands, forest management
decisions and resources, fire management, weather events, the
actions of people, like the use of pyrotechnic devices, and the
list, unfortunately, continues. In addition, there is still
more that must be done to protect Americans from wildfires,
make impacted communities whole, and ensure the U.S. Forest
Service has the tools they need to respond to and combat
wildfires, all while combating the climate crisis.
Managing our forests to mitigate future wildfire risk is a
steep, but not insurmountable task, and former Forest Service
Chief Vicki Christiansen testified recently that we need to
treat an additional 20 million acres of forestlands over the
next 10 years to make progress in reducing our wildfire risk. I
am looking forward to the conversation about how we can make
that happen. And, before we begin the discussion, I do want to
congratulate Randy Moore on his new role as Chief of the U.S.
Forest Service. As a Regional Forester, Chief Moore has been a
leader among his peers on issues relating to conservation,
combating the climate crisis, responding to wildfires.
Chief Moore's appointment to this role is historic. He is
also the first African American to hold this role in the
history of the United States Forest Service. I was excited to
have a chance to speak with Chief Moore in advance of this
hearing, learn about some of his experiences, the places he has
worked throughout the United States, and I look forward to
hearing more from him today. I have the utmost confidence in
his leadership, and the vision that he brings to the U.S.
Forest Service, and I appreciate him joining us today to answer
our questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Spanberger follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger, a Representative
in Congress from Virginia
Thank you all for joining us here today for this important and
timely hearing on the 2021 wildfire season.
We've all seen the footage of the wildfires raging in the West
already this year. These fires are terrifying, and I stand ready to do
whatever I can as Chair of this Subcommittee to ensure that the Forest
Service has the resources, the personnel, and the tools they need to
prepare for future fires and respond to the wildland fires already
raging. It is also imperative that we make sure firefighters on the
ground are compensated fairly and given adequate time away from this
intense and dangerous work. I think I speak for everyone here today
when I say that America's firefighters embody our nation's highest
ideals of courage, commitment, and selflessness toward their fellow
Americans.
Unfortunately, as we head into the heart of the wildfire season, we
are expected to have yet another unprecedented year of dangerous and
deadly wildfires ahead of us. As we speak, there are currently more
than 60 wildfires raging in the United States across 3 million acres of
land.
While the volume of wildfires may be unprecedented, the story
before us is a familiar one. In the short time that I've chaired this
Subcommittee, I have presided over a wildfire hearing each year that
begins with news about how that year's wildfire season is worse than
the last. In fact, almost exactly a year ago, I sat here and presided
over a nearly identical hearing as the SCU Lightening Complex,
Rattlesnake, Creek, and El Dorado Fires--among others--devastated the
western United States.
At that hearing, I compared the situation in the West to another
environmental crisis that faced much of the United States in the
1930s--the Dust Bowl.
During that period, there was a sense that Congress did not
understand the severity of the problems facing America's farmers and
families living in the midst of an environmental crisis. Despite
demands for action by both the Administration and those impacted by the
dust storms, for years, Congress failed to act in a comprehensive
manner. It was not until March of 1935, when the dust from the Midwest
reached the Capitol's steps and lawmakers were forced to see it and
experience it with their own eyes, that compromise could be reached on
what became the first Federal conservation bill--the Soil Conservation
and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936.
It should not take the ash of these wildfires, or the debris and
flood waters of the hurricanes ravaging our coasts, or the severe heat
felt by millions across the nation and across the globe on a daily
basis, reaching the Capitol's steps today, for this Congress to take
action on the environmental crisis currently facing us.
Through the House Agriculture Committee's section of the proposed
Build Back Better Act, this Committee is acting. This bill, marked up
by this Committee just a few weeks ago, contains $14 billion for
hazardous fuel treatments on National Forest System Lands, $1 billion
for critical vegetation management activities, $9 billion in grants to
state and private forestry for hazardous fuels treatments, millions of
dollars in grants for the recovery and rehabilitation of areas affected
by wildfires, $50 million for post-fire recovery plans, and would
remove the cap on the Reforestation Trust Fund--building on the REPLANT
Act introduced by my colleague Congressman Panetta, who serves on this
Subcommittee.
What's more, this bill squarely takes aim at combating the climate
crisis by investing in clean energy jobs, climate-smart conservation
practices at USDA, and the creation of a Civilian Climate Corps as
called for in my bill, the Climate Stewardship Act, that I introduced
alongside Senator Booker.
Of course, climate is not the only factor contributing to the
intensity of wildfire seasons. We know that many factors are involved
in the current wildfires and our wildfire risk. That certainly includes
encroachment of housing and development on forested wildlands; forest
management decisions and resources; fire management; weather events;
actions of people, like use of pyrotechnic devices; and the list
unfortunately continues.
In addition, there is still more that must be done to protect
Americans from wildfires, make impacted communities whole, ensure the
U.S. Forest Service has the tools they need to respond to and combat
wildfires, all while combating the climate crisis.
Managing our forests to mitigate future wildfire risk is a steep
but not insurmountable task. Former Forest Service Chief Vicki
Christiansen testified recently that we need to treat an additional 20
million acres of Forest Service lands over the next 10 years to make
progress in reducing our wildfire risk. I am looking forward to a
discussion on how we can make that happen.
Before we begin, I want to congratulate Randy Moore on his new role
as the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service. As a Regional Forester, Chief
Moore has been a leader among his peers on issues relating to
conservation, combating the climate crisis, and responding to
wildfires. Chief Moore's appointment to the role is also historic, as
he will be the first African American to hold this role in the history
of the U.S. Forest Service. I was excited to have the chance to speak
with Chief Moore in advance of this hearing and have the utmost
confidence in the leadership and vision he brings to the U.S. Forest
Service.
With that, I thank our speakers for joining us today. We look
forward to the discussion and I'll recognize the Ranking Member for any
remarks he'd like to make.

The Chair. With that, I thank our speaker for joining us, I
look forward to the discussion, and I will now recognize the
Ranking Member for any remarks that he would like to make at
the outset of this hearing.

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

Mr. LaMalfa. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I greatly
appreciate us having this opportunity to have this very
important hearing today, and cover the subject, as it greatly
needs to be, and ongoing. I also appreciate your comments and
your statement too about that it took the dust from the Dust
Bowl to reach the steps of the Capitol to get action, and we
hope that we don't have to deal with the smoke and the ash from
this, and yet indeed some of that smoke and ash has already,
just from this year, reached back here. Indeed, you would see
that there would be health advisory warnings to not go outside
and exercise from fires coming from my district, and some of my
neighboring district colleagues as well. So, I appreciate that
comment, and that sentiment.
So, with that, welcome, Chief Moore, and thanks for being
with us on the big screen, although you are on the small screen
right now there. Is that Mount Shasta behind you there,
perhaps, or--hard to tell from here----
Mr. Moore. It could very well be Mount Shasta.
Mr. LaMalfa. Okay. So, as we have talked about here a
little bit, like so many others who live in the West or near
forests, of course, it is an extremely important and personal
issue to me, and so many that I represent. So, I want to first
recognize our firefighters who have done the hard work on the
ground, who risk their lives each day to confront these
disasters head on. And there is nothing like when I was up on--
visiting the fires myself on--the Dixie Fire, as we know, right
near the Town of Greenville, just after Greenville was consumed
by one just a few miles up the road.
There is another town called Canyon Dam that--they were
gracious enough to take me by, and, as we arrived there, we
only had minutes to even view Canyon Dam, as the orange wall of
heat and flame was only about a mile down the road, and--as we
and the group said, I guess we need to turn around and head
back, because--it was incredible. The roar of that fire, the
wind that it created, a 50 mile an hour swirl of wind, and just
minutes later the Town of Canyon Dam was gone. So, our
firefighters are out there having to deal with that, and trying
to figure out how to stay out of the way of it at the same
time, trying to cut those fire lines, and do what they do. We
greatly appreciate the risk, and them putting it all on the
line.
These past years have, again, been incredibly difficult for
my district, and my neighboring districts too, and for rural
forested regions of the West. Last year we saw over 10 million
acres burn, over 40 percent of it in California alone. It has
been just as difficult, and it may even set greater records by
the time 2021 is over with. Even more communities were leveled
this year, as I mentioned, than by the last 2 or 3 years. Six
of the worst fire seasons on record have occurred over just a 1
year period in 2020 and 2021. This includes the August Complex,
the SCU Lightning Fire, Creek, the North Complex Fires in 2020,
and including the devastating ones this year, Dixie, Bootleg up
in Oregon, Caldor, south of me, near the Tahoe area, the
Monument Fire to the west of my area, and my other tragedies
ongoing.
We know there are some 63 million acres at medium- to high-
risk of wildfire, and at least 80 million acres of Forest
Service land that need treatment. I was pleased to hear the
Chair's mention of previous Chief Christiansen saying 20
million acres need to be done on a fast-forward basis. Although
the challenges before the Forest Service are many, the
solutions that we must put into practice to prevent
catastrophic wildfire are clear and well-established.
While many continue to blame a changing climate for the
increase in acres burned each year, and the greater intensity
of recent wildfires, the fact is most of our forests are indeed
overgrown and have been overstocked for decades. We aren't
doing enough management to reduce these fuel loads that have
dramatically intensified the wildfire crisis. They are a
national emergency, yet we will not solve this crisis without a
fundamental shift on how we manage these lands. We need to
increase the pace and scale of landscape projects that reduce
hazardous fuel loads. We need to strategically thin the forests
where necessary, around communities, of course defensible space
around homes, and set up lines of defense, maybe on our
ridgetops, or other areas that make sense, so when a fire does
occur, and they will occur, that it gives our firefighters a
place to make a stand, instead of unknown devastation for
unknown distance.
I find it very frustrating that some Members of Congress
and outside groups who don't represent National Forests, or
areas constantly devastated by wildfire, continue to try to put
a stop to what Forest Service and other land managers are
trying to do for proactive management that will reduce the
threat of wildfire, and encourage healthy forestlands, healthy
for the forests themselves, the wildlife, the water quality
that is going to be affected by so much ash, and so much
erosion of soil. Our forests, they are undergrown--excuse me,
they are overgrown and under-managed. We need to be doing more
active management immediately to reduce the threat of these
fires and save lives. I appreciate today. We need to do more of
these hearings on wildfire, and we won't solve the crisis by
throwing money at the problem while needlessly, at the same
time, hamstringing the Forest Service.
So Chief Moore, again, thank you for being with us today.
We are eager to hear your testimony, your ideas. I look forward
to working with you, and identifying the ways for Congress to
do its part to support the Forest Service and the firefighters
on the front line. We need to incentivize them to want to stay
there. And so--finally, to make great strides to address the
wildfire crisis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. LaMalfa. I would now
like to recognize Ranking Member Thompson for any opening
comments that he would like to make at this time.

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

Mr. Thompson. Madam Chair, thank you so much for this
hearing, Mr. Ranking Member. I appreciate you both and your
leadership in this area, and certainly once again, welcome to
Chief Moore. I much appreciate you being here today and having
this very timely conversation.
While last year was one of the worst fire seasons on
record, 2021 has been another incredibly challenging year for
the Forest Service and the communities across the West. This
year we have seen roughly 5.8 million acres burned so far in
some of the largest single fires, and we are still not even
through the season. The fact of the matter is that our forests
are overgrown, and in need of more management and proactive
treatment. This includes dramatically more hazardous fuels
reduction, thinning, post-fire restoration, and landscape scale
restoration projects to help reduce the intensity of wildfires.
It also includes increasing timber harvests, where it makes
sense, to support both the forest health and rural economies.
So, we are still below the target level of harvests, and not
getting anywhere close to allowable sales quantity system-wide.
Chief Moore, I welcome your input in this hearing on how we can
address these pressing issues. In my view, we need a
fundamental shift in how we equip the Forest Service and forest
managers to restore the land, and do the work necessary to
mitigate the wildfire crisis.
Regarding reconciliation, and the $40 billion for forestry,
I would like to echo the comments by Ranking Member LaMalfa.
Not only did this Committee mark up the ag portion without the
$28 billion for conservation, there are significant issues with
the forestry section that makes that funding unworkable. The
forestry provisions don't just miss an opportunity to provide
new authorities needed for more management, it is worse,
because it restricts the Forest Service's ability to do the
restoration necessary on the millions of acres at medium- to
high-risk of wildfire.
We can't just throw money at wildfire while limiting the
Service, and hope for a different outcome. Continuing to put
limited resources into small-scale projects will not restore
our forests, or reduce the threat of fire. We need to provide
the appropriate level of funding, coupled with workable
authorities, to help the agency increase management at the
landscape scale. We tried doing this in the farm bill in 2018
with this Committee's version of the farm bill, which contained
a variety of authorities to help the Forest Service better
manage, and do so on a larger scale. And while the final bill
does contain some limited new authorities, Senate Democrats
once again refused to even meet with us to discuss the broader
reforms necessary during the conference process. Wildfire is an
emergency that we can wait no longer to address.
Chief Moore, thank you for your service, and for your
leadership, and, again, for being here today, and for this
important discussion. We look forward to your testimony and
thoughts on how we can support the rural economy, forest
health, and efforts to reduce the threats of wildfire. In
closing, I also join the Chair and Ranking Member in
recognizing our firefighters and wildland responders. We have
lost too many of them over the past number of years because of
the size and the intensity of these--what I believe are
avoidable wildfires, if we are proactive with management.
So, to all of you who serve in those capacities, we say
thank you for your support and constant sacrifices. We say
thank you to your families, who know that they don't know if
you are coming home at the end of the day, or the end of the
week, or the end of the month, when they are dispatched and
respond to these fires. But we do appreciate your support and
constant sacrifices to protect our forests, our homes, our
property, and lives. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Thompson.
The Chair would request that other Members submit their opening
statements for the record so our witness may begin his
testimony, and to ensure that there is ample time for our
questions.
I am pleased to welcome to the Committee the Chief of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, Mr. Randy
Moore. Chief Moore, you will have 5 minutes to deliver your
testimony. The timer should be visible to you on your screen,
and will count down to zero, at which time your time has
expired. Chief Moore, please begin whenever you are ready.

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

Mr. Moore. Great. So, Chair Spanberger, Ranking Member
LaMalfa, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of this
Committee, it is my honor to testify today for the first time
as Chief of the USDA Forest Service. I look forward to working
closely with each of you. Today I will focus on the ongoing
wildfire crisis. I will talk about what it will take to fight
these fires, improve forest health, and also protect
communities.
By any other standard, we would be gratified by our 98
percent success rate of putting fires out during initial
attack, but when you see the tragic results left by just two
percent of the fires, it is not good enough, not nearly. In my
40+ year career, 14 of those being in California, I have
witnessed firsthand the devastation of these fires. It is like
nothing I have seen before. The record fire year played out as
forecasters predicted. Climate change, drought, overgrowth, and
fuels created a dire condition that was just right for a severe
outbreak. We spent a record number of days at Preparedness
Level 5, which is the highest fire risk level. More than 40,000
fires have ravaged 5.5 million acres of forest, consuming 4,000
homes, businesses, and outbuildings. Resources stretched thin,
COVID-19 infections spiked, four Federal firefighters
sacrificed their lives, and it is not over.
The sobering takeaway, America's forests are in a state of
emergency, and it is time to treat them like one. This should
be a call to action, and it takes work on two fronts. We, among
others, must maintain a stable firefighting force and a modern
wildfire management system to ensure that we respond to these
fires. But it is equally essential that we employ an active
forest treatment program and strategy to put to work right
away, and do the right work in the right places at the right
scale to improve these forest conditions.
First, we must ensure a stable, resilient firefighting
force. That starts with taking care of our brave men and women
who fight fires. They deserve better work-life balances and
benefits. They deserve a supportive workplace in return for the
grueling, hard work they do. At a time of increased stress,
suicide, depression, they also need counseling and support
services to prevent the tragedies. They deserve better pay
above all. Federal wages of firefighters have not kept pace
with states'. I have listened to stories of firefighters
sleeping in their cars, or neglecting their medical bills. We
must work to improve pay, and give them a livable wage. We
already made a down payment on this commitment. As the
President promised, we raised firefighters' base salary so no
one makes less than $15 an hour. Permanent firefighters receive
up to a ten percent incentive. Temporary firefighters got a
$1,000 reward, but this is just the start. We are meeting and
working with firefighters, listening to co-create permanent
solutions.
We must also modernize our wildland fire management system.
This includes improving the use of technology. It also includes
upgrading our models and systems for decision-making, and
strengthening our cooperative relationships. But we will never
have hired enough firefighters, we will never buy enough
engines or aircraft to fight these fires. We must actively
treat forests. That is what it takes to turn this situation
around. We must shift from small-scale treatments, spread out,
and landscapes to strategic, science-based treatments across
boundaries at the size of the problem. It must start with those
places most critically at risk. We must treat 20 million acres
over 10 years. Done right, in the right places, treatments make
a difference. I saw firsthand the lifesaving results of the
Caldor Fire in Lake Tahoe. Forest treatments became a first
line of defense. We are seeing more and more examples of
success.
Finally, we know we can't do this work alone. It will take
partners, industry, states, and Federal agencies working
together. I extend my thanks to Congress for what you are doing
to pass the infrastructure bill. These investments are
essential to getting this groundwork done. We are optimistic,
we are working to get ready.
In closing, we have faced this record year with both
courage and humility. I am grateful to every firefighter,
cooperator, and support personnel. The best way we can honor
them, protect citizens, and reduce fire risk is to do this
essential work on the ground. It is how we combat climate
change. It is how we deliver services. It is how we create
jobs, and sustain the healthy, productive forests that
Americans deserve. Thank you for this opportunity, and I will
be pleased to take any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]

Prepared Statement of Randy Moore, Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Madam Chair, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss wildfire
management and the 2021 Fire Year. Wildfires threaten urban and rural
communities, Tribal Nations and their interests, farm and ranchland,
municipal water supplies, timber, recreation sites, and important
wildlife habitat.
The Forest Service has a continuing need and responsibility to
partner with all communities to prepare for wildfires. The Forest
Service does not work alone in managing wildfires across the nation--
wildfire requires an all-of-government response, including major
contributions from states, Tribes, and local government, contractors,
partners, and volunteer organizations. These partnerships have evolved
over many years, creating a robust interagency capability to support
wildfire suppression across the country.
Early in the year, the National Interagency Fire Center forecast
predicted above normal fire potential for much of the West. As a
result, the Administration took a number of steps to prepare for this
fire year by bolstering firefighter pay, extending temporary
firefighters to ensure effective response throughout the fire year,
making additional aircraft available, continuing transition to a more
permanent firefighting workforce, invoking the Defense Production Act
to mitigate a potential shortage of firehose, and leveraging satellite
and emerging technologies to rapidly detect new wildfires.
2021 Fire Year
Our nation is enduring another devastating wildfire year, one that
has cut destructive swaths through many states, including California,
Oregon, Washington, Montana, Idaho, and Arizona. Complicating our
efforts has been managing the effects of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic,
including the negative impacts on the health and availability of
firefighting resources and supply chains. As of September 27, 2021,
there have been 45,971 fires that have burned over 5.9 million acres
across all jurisdictions. Sadly, we are also mourning the loss of a
number of lives throughout the country due to wildfire activity,
including four Federal firefighters who made the ultimate sacrifice in
protecting our communities. The impact to communities cannot be
overstated. While assessments are ongoing, to date, over 4,500 homes,
commercial properties, and outbuildings have been destroyed, along with
an untold amount of property damage and loss of livelihood for many.
Fire year 2021, like 2017, 2018 and 2020, has been devastating in
not only the size and frequency of large wildfires but also in terms of
sustained activity. Since early spring, much of the western United
States has seen intense fire activity that has not fully abated.
Significant drought across the western United States produced
conditions ripe for fire from the start of the summer. Substantial
lightning events occurred early, and fires began simultaneously across
multiple geographic areas. Our ability to mobilize resources was
immediately constrained as we had personnel engaged in fighting fires
in their home geographic area and could not leave to support other
geographic areas as they have traditionally done. Prioritization of
critical resources began early, and the demand for resources continues
to be high across the system.
Numerous large fires, including the nearly 1 million acre Dixie
Fire, have burned in and around communities across Arizona, California,
Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana. Smoke impacts from these fires
have been widespread across the western states and have occasionally
spread all the way to the East Coast. Resources have been constrained
and the interagency wildfire system, of which the Forest Service is a
part, has had to make many tough decisions to ensure firefighting
resources were prioritized to fires with the greatest threat to public
safety.
We entered into National Wildfire Preparedness Level 5 on July 14,
2021, indicating the highest level of fire activity and significant
strains on firefighting resources. This is the earliest date in a
decade and the second earliest date on record moving to this highest
Preparedness Level. We remained at Preparedness Level 5 for 69 days,
the longest stretch on record. During this stretch an average of 22,900
firefighters and support personnel were assigned to wildfires each day.
Due to local fire conditions, temporary closure orders have been
put in place in some areas to provide for public safety and reduce the
potential for new fires, including a temporary closure of national
forests in California. Implementing fire restrictions, burn bans, or
associated closures is a particularly difficult decision that we do not
take lightly. The closures in California helped decrease the potential
for new fire starts at a time of extremely limited firefighting
resources. They also enhanced firefighter and community safety by
limiting exposure that occurs in public evacuation situations,
especially as COVID-19 continues to impact human health and strain
hospital resources. Closure decisions are not made by the Forest
Service in a vacuum. We work with our partners, state agencies, and
communities to establish criteria for closing and re-opening our
forests as conditions warrant. This risk-informed decision making with
our partners led to us reopening California's national forests 2 days
earlier than planned.
Response requires a whole of government approach, and I want to
personally thank our partners who answered our call for assistance to
bolster our capabilities: the Department of Defense who provided active
military from Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington, eight C-130 and
two RC-26 aircraft, and continued access to critical satellite and
other imagery; the Defense Logistics Agency; our international partners
in Australia, Canada, and Mexico; and the Fire Department of New York
City's All Hazard Incident Management Team. States also received
significant assistance from their National Guard units. We are grateful
for all of our partners around the country and around the world who
continue to pitch in to help our nation through yet another difficult
fire year.
Taking Care of Firefighters and Communities
Wildland firefighters are the backbone of our ability to protect
communities and vital infrastructure from wildfires. Wildland fire
forecasts are consistently predicting fire seasons that start sooner,
end later, and are more severe throughout the nation. Fire seasons have
become fire years. With this change in condition, it is imperative to
ensure a robust year-round workforce available to respond at any time,
that is supported and equitably compensated, has a better work-life
balance, and is available to undertake preventive actions like
hazardous fuels management treatments during periods of low fire
activity. As the complexity of the firefighting environment grows
exponentially, our recruitment and retention of firefighters has been
further complicated by our inability to offer a set of uniform
competitive wages and benefits for permanent and seasonal employees.
Federal wages for firefighters have not kept pace with wages offered by
state, local and private entities in some areas of the United States.
Firefighters must be fairly paid for the grueling work they are willing
to take on. Additionally, in difficult fire years such as this one,
annual Federal pay cap limitations can make it challenging for agencies
to appropriately target compensation to our critical front-line
employees and management officials who the U.S. government relies upon
to lead our most difficult issues and at times dangerous incidents. We
have seen highly trained personnel leave the Forest Service; we have
experienced some inability to recruit new employees; and we are in a
constant mode of training new employees. In addition, our Federal
wildland firefighting workforce is stressed like no time in history.
Suicidal ideation, depression, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
affect firefighters at levels far above what is found in general
society. The Administration will work with Congress on longer-term much
needed compensation, benefit, and work-life balance reforms for Federal
wildland firefighters.
It is time for a significant change in our Federal wildland fire
system. The Forest Service is partnering with the Department of the
Interior, the Office of Personnel Management, and Executive Office of
the President to identify policy and legislative solutions to these
challenges. As the President committed, permanent firefighting
personnel up to the General Schedule (GS)-9 level, were provided a
performance award payment equivalent to a ten percent award; temporary
firefighters received a $1,300 award; and permanent and temporary
firefighters in a GS-1, GS-2 or GS-3 position were additionally
compensated to ensure they make $15 per hour. Over the last 2 years,
the Forest Service has converted 500 firefighting positions from
temporary to permanent. The Administration also supports the premium
pay cap waiver in the FY 2022 Continuing Resolution that passed the
House of Representatives. This provision will ensure that Federal
firefighters will be compensated for the work they have and will
complete this year. Most critically, going forward the Forest Service
is working directly with firefighters and union officials to listen to
their concerns and co-create solutions that serve their needs into the
future. We look forward to working with Congress to support and
modernize the Federal wildland fire fighter workforce
Maintaining the health and safety of all our employees as they move
around the country is fundamental to our continued success. Preventing
the spread of COVID-19 among our first responders and communities is
critical. COVID-19 protocols established in 2020, remain in place again
this year. As a result, the Forest Service and our interagency partners
have seen success with our COVID-19 prevention and mitigation measures.
The learning culture of the wildland fire agencies allows for lessons-
learned to be shared in real time across fire incidents.
The Forest Service continues to work with community leaders and
local law enforcement to ensure their needs are met, and wildfire
threats and capacity are clearly understood when planning firefighting
strategies and evacuations.
Smoke from large wildfire events poses significant risks to public
health and safety. The Interagency Wildland Fire Air Quality Response
Program has developed approaches for early warning of wildfire smoke
impacts through efforts at the Forest Service Pacific Northwest
Research Station and partner agencies. Successful outcomes include
working with the Environmental Protection Agency to provide fire and
smoke information on the popular https://www.airnow.gov/fires/ website
and phone application. Air Resource Advisors provide Smoke Outlooks
that inform approximately 21 million people, many in rural and
underserved communities. Community preparation for wildfire smoke
allows public health officials to be aware and prepare for effects on
individuals vulnerable to smoke impacts.
Reducing Fire Risk Across All Lands
Devastating wildfires are the most significant threat to the
ability of our forests to sequester carbon, support local economies,
and provide clean water and other important resources to communities.
About 63 million acres, or 32 percent, of National Forest System lands
are at high or very high hazard for wildfires that would be difficult
to contain. This is, in part, a result of 110 years of fire overly
aggressive suppression policies as well as climate change. Forest
Service research has identified hundreds of communities at high risk
from wildland fire. To reduce this risk there is a need to
significantly scale up hazardous fuels reduction treatments across
landscapes and in partnership with communities in the most at-risk
places.
An example of how fuels treatments help protect communities was
seen in the Caldor Fire. On August 14, 2021, the Caldor Fire started on
the Eldorado National Forest in California. Due to a historically dry
season, the fire made unprecedented runs, with growth rates ranging
from 10,000 to 40,000 acres per day in the direction of the Lake Tahoe
Basin. The fire remained very active day and night. The fire was both
fuels and wind driven and exceeded fire growth expectations in areas
with significant natural barriers that would normally redirect or stall
a fire. Despite the difficulty in managing this fire and the demanding
fire environment, there are success stories to be found in the fuels
reduction treatments completed around Lake Tahoe and the surrounding
communities. As the Caldor Fire moved east, pushed by high winds and
dry fuels, it encountered both thinning and prescribed fire treatments
(see as green and purple polygons in the map below) that moderated fire
behavior, allowed more time for evacuation efforts, and created safer
and more conducive conditions for firefighters. There is no doubt homes
were saved because of the efforts of firefighters, but those efforts
were made safer and more effective due to the thinning and prescribed
fire treatments in the wildland-urban interface.
South Tahoe Lake Hazardous Fuels Treatments
Sec.[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

The Forest Service carries out approximately 3 million acres of
fuels reduction treatments annually. The Department of the Interior,
states, Tribes and others also treat about 1 million acres annually.
Unfortunately, this is not at the scale necessary to address the
problem. Without reconsidering the way we treat hazardous fuels on
Federal and non-Federal land, and address the impacts of climate
change, we will remain in this current wildfire crisis. Destruction
from wildfires will continue to threaten communities across the West.
We will work with partners to focus fuels and forest health treatments
more strategically and at the scale of the problem, using the best
available science as our guide.
To address the highest risk acres at the scale needed, we work
collaboratively with states, Tribes, local communities, private
landowners, and other stakeholders to:

Strategically treat 20 million acres on priority National
Forest System lands, in the west, over and above our current
level of treatments; and

Strategically treat 30 million acres of other priority
Federal, state, Tribal, and private lands, in the West.

Forest Service research and risk based modeling has identified
hundreds of communities at high risk, and can inform where and how to
place treatments that will truly make a difference. We know that
treatments need to be done across jurisdictions to be effective, and
there are collaborative frameworks in place to enable cross-boundary
treatments, including Cohesive Strategy projects, Joint Chiefs
Restoration Partnership projects, Good Neighbor Authority agreements,
and Shared Stewardship agreements.
The Biden Administration's American Jobs Plan calls for protecting
and restoring ``nature-based infrastructure--our lands, forests,
wetlands, watersheds, and coastal and ocean resources.'' As part of the
plan, the President has called on Congress ``to invest in protection
from extreme wildfires.'' In addition, the USDA Climate-Smart
Agriculture and Forestry Strategy has called for expanding the area of
fuels treatments by two to four times nationwide to reduce wildfire
risk.
The President has made it clear that reducing the risk of wildfire
and creating climate resilient forest landscapes is a top priority
including a significant increase of over $280 million in wildfire risk
reduction programs within the FY 2022 President's Budget. Additionally,
the Administration supports the new investments within the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Deal that would enable the Forest Service to treat
landscapes in the right places and at the right scale that is
commensurate with the wildfire problem our nation faces.
Recovery Post-Wildfire
The Forest Service has a lot of work to do to restore functioning
ecosystems following the 2020 and 2021 wildfires. For example,
wildfires create over 80% of reforestation needs, including
approximately 1 million acres that burned with high severity in 2020
alone. The Forest Service currently addresses only 6% of post-wildfire
replanting needs per year, resulting in a rapidly expanding list of
reforestation needs. The Agency has plans for the reforestation of over
1.3 million acres of National Forest System land; however these plans
only address \1/3\ of National Forest System reforestation needs,
estimated to be 4 million acres and growing. As we work to recover from
wildfire, the Agency emphasizes planting the right species, in the
right place, under the right conditions, so forests will remain healthy
and resilient over time.
Employee care and recovery is a critical part of our work. Many
national forests sustained destruction of infrastructure as well as
significant environmental damage in the 2020 and 2021 wildfires. As a
result of the 2020 wildfires alone, 110 Forest Service structures were
damaged or destroyed, including: employee housing on the Arapaho and
Roosevelt National Forests in Colorado; ten structures at the Brush
Creek Work Center on the Plumas National Forest in California; and
government quarters that housed 64 employees in Oregon. In September
2020, the Forest Service stood up a team to aid in the care and
recovery of employees, administrative units, communities, and short-
term and long-term natural resource needs. Several systems,
organizations, and procedures have been developed that have supported
employee well-being and employee's needs at work resulting from the
2020 and 2021 wildfires. Some of these include an increase in mental
health assistance for employees through peer-to-peer employee resources
and contract services provided on incidents, and reimbursement to
eligible employees when they were under evacuation orders.
Conclusion
The USDA Forest Service is committed to keeping our communities and
firefighters safe as fire seasons grow longer and more severe. The
dedication, bravery, and professional integrity of our firefighters and
support personnel is second to none. Many have lost their own homes as
they helped save their communities. As we work with our many partners
to assist communities impacted by wildfires, we are committed, through
shared stewardship, to change this trend in the coming years.
The Forest Service looks forward to working with this Subcommittee
to take the steps forward needed to pay and support our wildland
firefighters, reduce wildfire risk to communities across the western
United States, and restore ecosystems and infrastructure affected by
wildfires.

The Chair. Thank you so very much for your opening
statement, Chief Moore. At this time Members will be recognized
for questions in order of seniority, alternating between
Majority and Minority Members. You will be recognized for 5
minutes each in order to allow us to get to as many questions
as possible. Please keep your microphones muted until you are
recognized in order to minimize background noise. I will begin
by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
And, Chief Moore, I want to thank you so very much for
being here again. I congratulate you on your new position, and
I thank you for your opening testimony. You--and so I will get
right at my questions. You spoke about the recent pay raises,
the announcement of the Biden Administration regarding
increased pay for firefighters, and spoke a little bit about
that. Could you give us your assessment so far about whether or
not you think that the increased pay for firefighters, and what
has been done so far, will improve the agency's ability to hire
and retain firefighters? Are there other long-term strategies
that Congress can work on to address firefighter pay issues or
retention issues?
Mr. Moore. Yes. So, thank you Chair Spanberger. So as
Chief, one of the first things I want to do is provide
stability in the organization, and that means we have a lot of
vacant positions. We also have a lot of detailers in key
leadership positions, and what that does is it erodes the
quality and the continuity of decisions that need to be made on
the ground. And so, in order to provide some stability to
address that critical issue within the agency, we need to get
those positions filled, and remove the detailers, and put
permanent people in there. The other thing, in terms of the
focus that I think we need to do, is what I mentioned in my
opening statement, is really thinning the forests to reduce
fire risk.
The Chair. Yes.
Mr. Moore. We talk a lot about fire suppression, but really
we need to spend an equal amount of time talking about the
treatments out on the ground, because I think that that is
going to have an equal, if more, of a positive effect on how
these fires are behaving as they walk across the landscapes.
And in terms of the question being directly answered, I think
it is a step in the right direction. This is good news. Looking
at $15, no one within the firefighting workforce work--makes
less than that, I think recognizing the firefighters up to the
GS-9 level, with a ten percent award based on their salary,
those are good steps to make. But, like I said earlier, it is a
good beginning, and I want to work with Congress, as well as
the firefighters and the union themselves, to look at how can
we co-create an opportunity to go to that next step for our
firefighters.
The Chair. Yes. And Chief Moore, in your answer you spoke
about forest maintenance, and thinning the forests, and earlier
this year I introduced a piece of legislation called the
Climate Stewardship Act (H.R. 2534), alongside Senator Booker
in the Senate. It laid out a framework for some climate-smart
Federal investments in forestry and conservation. It also
includes funding for a Civilian Climate Corps. Separately, I
worked with Congressman Neguse of Colorado to introduce the
Civilian Climate Corps Act (H.R. 2241), which counterparts
Senators Coons, Heinrich, and Lujan have introduced in the
Senate. Do you see, and do you have any feedback for us, as we
look forward, and continue to try and move these bills
forward--do you think that the creation of, or do you have any
advice for us related to the creation of a Civilian Climate
Corps how that might be helpful in building up the forestry
workforce in that forest maintenance, and in the preventative
work that you just mentioned?
Mr. Moore. Yes. Thank you, Chair. So, the Civilian
Conservation Corps is a part of our proud history. In fact, a
lot of the work that they have done back in the 1930s, 1940s,
and 1950s still stands today. There are a lot of skills that
are being developed within that workforce. In terms of a
Civilian Climate Corps, this will put a new, diverse generation
of Americans to work that can help conserve and restore public
lands and waters, and I think that the investment in
restoration, reforestation, reclamation, and other activities
that improve the function and form of natural systems will not
only bolster our nation's resilience to extreme wildfires, sea
level rise, droughts, storms, and all the other climate impact,
but they will also create a new pathway to the forestry
workforce of the future.
The Chair. Thank you very, very much, Chief Moore, for that
answer. I have 38 seconds left, so, in the interest of
respecting everyone's time, I am actually going to yield back,
because I could otherwise spend another 10 minutes asking you
many questions. And I am now going to yield to Ranking Member
LaMalfa to ask his questions.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you again, Madam Chair. Randy, let us
talk about--I mean Chief Moore. I mean, I know you as Randy.
Anyway, sorry about that Chief Moore, let us talk about the
initial attack on new fire starts, which we have seen some
controversy about that even this year in California. It is
extremely important that, in everybody's view, that an initial
attack on a fire while it is small, and containable, or at
least theoretically containable, is preferable. So, when we
talked about this some months ago, you made a public pledge as
well to try and change what the Forest Service pattern is on
that, or beef that up, so what changes are you putting into
place, and would like to implement for Forest Service to
aggressively put out new fires right from the very beginning at
the initial source?
Mr. Moore. So, thank you, Ranking Member LaMalfa, and, as
you well know, being in California, particularly in the
northern part of the state--and as I mentioned in my opening
statement, when you really look at the 45,000 fires that the
Forest Service had to respond to this fire year so far to date,
and having a 98 percent success rate, initial attack has been
very successful. The issue is really--when those fires escape
initial attack, then they take on a behavior that we have not
seen in our past in our lifetimes. And so what we have to do,
we have to talk also about forest treatments on the landscape,
because we will never have enough firefighters to put every
fire out. As much as we would love to do that, we just simply
won't have enough firefighters to do that, so we have to try
and level the playing field, and that is with a very strong,
and an aggressive approach to forest management. Because I
believe that that has just as much of an impact, if not more,
than the actual tactics and strategies we are deploying on
these fire suppression efforts.
Mr. LaMalfa. I agree with that. That is indeed the only way
we are going to be able to play defense on this, is to have the
thinning, and have particular zones where you can trap fire as
it approaches it in a situation like that. But, there is always
much concern out in the field. My office gets many of the
calls. It seems like they are monitoring the fire. It seems
like they are not attacking it initially. We saw that on the
Tamarack there, that--it was an area that was observed for--I
think Mr. McClintock could tell us, but probably about over a
week, and then--it just felt like it was an area that wouldn't
do much, but then a wind came along, and conditions happened,
and it turned into a very large fire. So, will you continue to
pursue a strong initial attack? Would you say that the Service
will throw all the resources they can at initially keeping the
fire small?
Mr. Moore. Congressman, we are doing that right now, and I
appreciate you bringing up the Tamarack Fire, because it is so
easy for someone to look in hindsight at what we are doing and
second guess the decision, but let me tell you what actually
happened on the Tamarack Fire, since you brought that up. It
was a single tree fire is how it started. At the time we had
100 large wildfires. We had 27,000 firefighters deployed on
fighting the fires, so we didn't have a lot of additional
firefighters to put on every fire while trying to put it out.
We took the appropriate response. We spiked out a small crew to
monitor that fire.
The problem with that fire is the same problem that we are
having all across the West, that once that fire broke away from
that initial area, it just exploded into a larger fire. But,
looking at the priorities of where we spend our firefighting,
it is really about protecting life and property first. Our
firefighters deploy to protect communities, life, and property,
and that fire was in a remote area, and so the best--the only
choice we really had was to monitor that fire. And as soon as
that fire broke, it was a matter of just reassigning crews to
try and attack those larger fires, because all of a sudden it
was threatening communities. And so we would have loved to have
been able to have enough crews to put on that fire.
And here again, just that example, it lends itself to
having the wrong discussion about what we really should be
talking about, and that is a very active forest management
program, because there will always be situations where you can
second guess the decisions that were made. And I can't defend
any decision because, in your community, if your community is
threatened, then that is what matters. The problem though, is
that there are a lot of communities that are threatened, and we
are having to make some tough choices.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, I get that. It is staffing, it is spread
out resources. The Dixie Fire, for example, started because of
one tree falling into a power line, and on the Tamarack
situation, it is not uncommon, like a fire that happened in
Grass Valley just a month ago, they pulled resources off
another one in order to pounce on that, and they kept it to
within a couple hundred acres right in the middle of a town,
and then they put the resources back on a much larger ongoing
fire. So, I am not here to second guess you, sir, it is just
most of an issue of when we have an opportunity to--and you
said the 98 percent. I--that is pretty incredible, but it only
takes one to turn into a million acres, like we had with the
Dixie Fire. Anyway, I need to yield back. Thank you, Madam
Chair.
The Chair. Thank you, Ranking Member LaMalfa. And certainly
I am always happy to let you go a little over time when we are
talking wildfires, because I know how impacted your district
is. The Chair will now recognize Congresswoman Pingree of
Maine.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank
you so much for holding this important hearing today, and
welcome, Chief Moore. I am really looking forward to working
with you, and I am very pleased to see you in that position. I
really appreciate the fact that you bring so many years of
experience and understanding into this job, and I am sure we
will be well served by working with you. I also appreciate your
opening statement, and the emphasis you have placed on making
sure that the employees of the Forest Service are well treated,
well paid, and understanding how critical that is to achieving
your mission. So, I could ask you probably a million questions
today, but I am going to try to just get a couple of them out.
And I just want to say my condolences for those communities
that have been so dramatically affected by the fires, by the
firefighters that fight them, and the huge challenges that are
faced out West by districts like Mr. LaMalfa's.
As you know, I come from Maine. We are the most forested
state in the nation, but a very different set of circumstances,
and I know you know what our forests are like, and some of our
challenges. One of the things that I wanted to bring up, which
is somewhat of a side issue, I guess, but I think it is
critical, is that one of the obstacles, as I see it, to
wildfire risk reduction is the lack of markets for small
diameter wood, which means it is generally not cost effective
to remove it, and we have to understand that forests have to be
healthy in the marketplace as well. But innovative wood
products, like cross-laminated timber, have the potential to
drive demand for this material, reduce the wildfire hazards,
and even reduce the carbon footprint of new construction, which
I think is an important thing to remember.
In the Build Back Better Act (H.R. 5376) we put $1 billion
in there to Wood Innovation Grants, but it is also been
something that I have been anxious to increase the funding for.
Could you just talk a little bit about the important role that
the Forest Service plays in wood innovation in helping us to
develop these new markets? Because I just see that as critical.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Congresswoman Pingree, and you are
absolutely right. We need to be looking at new markets. So the
Forest Service, along with our partners, have been working to
expand markets toward innovative wood products and renewable
energy for a while now, and some of the specific examples of
available programs in the Forest Service include Wood
Innovations Program, Community Wood Grant Program, and this
includes potential to use wood for advanced biofuel, biochar,
heat, and power. And, through our research and development
deputy area, the Forest Service is also partnering with other
government agencies, small businesses, Tribal communities, and
industry collaboratives, and universities that are actually
across the world to produce high quality, science-based forest
products innovation.
And so our forest products research, in many cases, it is
stimulating economic resilience in many areas, including
housing, bioenergy, tourism, packaging, and paper. And by
promoting the efficient use of forest products, our research
also helps protect against natural disturbance. We talk about
wildfires, but it is also about invasive species, and a climate
change, a change in climate, or climate change, that is
creating a lot of these situations out there. We have other
wood markets that we are very proud of as well, the CLT
industry. In fact, I was scheduled to go and look at the first
Forest Service building on the Nez Perce, that was built using
CLT products.
So we do think that this is an opportunity to use more of
the small logs that we have in clearing the National Forests,
and just the whole forested landscape, and I really appreciate
you bringing this up, because new markets need to emerge, and
the Forest Service, through our research and development
branch, is very active in trying to help create and stimulate
the economy around some of these new markets.
Ms. Pingree. Well, thank you, and I look forward to being
able to chat with you more about some of the things that you
are seeing, and that they are doing at the Wood Products Lab. I
am going to run out of time for you to answer this question,
but I just want to put it out there, and perhaps we can follow
up with a conversation about this another time. But, you have
emphasized the importance of this very active Forest Management
Program, and I am really interested to see how the Forest
Service is looking at this into the future, because I think
there are so many complexities involved with increasing the
harvests, understanding old growth forests, and what is
important to keep for our climate change impacts of carbon
sequestration, the impact of these new markets, understanding
the role of rebuilding our forests, the challenges with clear
cutting, and some of the things we know now about how forests
naturally rebuild.
It is way too many things in one sort of pocket, but I know
that this is really an important part of the Forest Service
vision, about how we manage into the future. I have 9 seconds,
so many you can only just say, yes, we could talk about that,
anything you want to say.
Mr. Moore. Yes, Congresswoman, I would love to talk to you
to a large extent about this. I have some ideas I would love to
share, so I look forward to the opportunity.
Ms. Pingree. Great, thank you. I look forward to that too.
And, again, thank you for taking on this role, and we are here
to support you.
The Chair. The Chair will now recognize Mr. Allen from
Georgia for 5 minutes. Mr. Allen, you are muted, sir.
Mr. Allen. All right. I have two hearings going, so sorry.
Madam Chair, thank you for having this hearing today. I think
it is very important that we talk about this issue, and really
get to the truth of the matter. Wildfires, particularly those
on Federal lands, are a major safety, public health, and
environmental issue for our western states. I was at a meeting
out in Jackson Hole, Wyoming over the August work period, and I
couldn't believe it. I mean, the smoke--you couldn't even see
the Grand Teton Mountains for the amount of smoke in Wyoming
that was coming from the wildfires in Oregon and California.
Over 70 percent of the nationwide acreage burned by wildfires
in 2020 was on Federal land. I mean, shouldn't that tell us
something?
So, Chief Moore, I am glad to have you here today on behalf
of the USDA Forest Service to try to help us understand what
the real problem is. There are several schools of thought on
why we are dealing more with wildfires today than ever before,
but I believe the elephant in the room is just simply
management, and just good care of this which has been given to
us, and we have dominion over. Federal regulations which
prevent the active management of our nation's forests, and
protects specific species of animals to the detriment of the
rest of the world due to increased carbon emissions via
wildfire, those are the two biggest enemies which proponents of
carbon sequestration will find. These environmental groups, who
clog our courts with frivolous lawsuits to stop the active
management of our forests, are another enemy of carbon
sequestration, and we must work to modernize our environmental
regulations to have a more fulsome understanding of
environmental health as a concept.
Most concerning for all of the climate control proponents
out there in recent years is the carbon emissions from the
California wildfires. I mean, why aren't we talking about that?
In fact, the carbon emissions of the California wildfires is
greater than the amount of carbon emissions that are produced
in a year to provide power to the entire State of California.
The Forest Service itself estimates that publicly and privately
owned forests are offsetting roughly 14 percent of all U.S.
carbon emissions, and, in fact, we need those forests to be
healthy to provide the ability to deal with a--and to provide
oxygen, and use the carbon that they need to survive. I hope we
can work together to modernize our Federal regulatory system in
a way that will allow us to manage our Federal lands and do
this more effectively. Chief, what do you see the main reason
for the increase in our wildfires that we have seen in recent
years?
Mr. Moore. So, Congressman, thank you for that question. It
has a lot of different tentacles, and so I am just going to
choose to go down a couple of them, just for the sake of time.
We made decisions back in the early 1900s to put all fires out
immediately, and, while that was the right decision at the
time, over time we have found out that that may not be the
right decision because the consequence is that now we have an
overstock, dense forests. And then when you lay climate change
on top of that, once a fire gets started in those conditions,
they are creating catastrophic events like we have never seen
before.
And so now it has caused us to focus on fire suppression
alone, but we really have to talk about treating the forests to
remove some of that overstock of dense material, because it is
lending itself to the fire behavior that we are seeing on the
landscape.
Mr. Allen. Well, it is obvious, when you look at--compared
to our private lands that are actively managed. You are not
going to have time to cover this, but we talk about climate
change, and how that is causing forest fires. If you have data
available, and like I said, I am about out of time, but if you
would get that to my office so that I could review that, the
science of how climate change causes forest fires, and has
created this increase in forest fires, I would certainly
appreciate it. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. I am
out of time.
The Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. Allen, and Mr.
O'Halleran from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member.
I would like to thank all the firefighters on the line who have
done so much to keep communities across the West safe this
summer. The tireless work of those on the line at the Telegraph
and Rafael Fires in my district saved communities in Arizona,
and I want to express my gratitude to them. However, I would be
remiss if I did not mention the other important lesson from
these fires. Areas that were previously treated or burned are
less susceptible to severe fire, but more significant is that
they become susceptible to flooding, and to nearby communities
and streams.
That brings me to the Forest Service's decision to cancel
Phase 2 Contract for the Four Forest Restoration Initiative,
4FRI. I am deeply disappointed that after 11 amendments, and
nearly 2 years, there is no clear indication when we are going
to get Phase 2 off the ground. Chief Moore, I thank you for
your willingness to quickly engage on 4FRI, and the
conversation we had last week with some of your deputy chiefs.
I am hopeful that the Administration is now engaged in the
issue, and I expect our offices will stay in close contact over
the coming weeks to ensure that this gets done quickly.
We also need to remember that, while the Forest Service has
seen decades of diminishing amount of personnel dedicated to
management of the forest--I have seen this ongoing now for 21
years of my life in public service, both in the legislature in
Arizona and in Congress. Thankfully, in the last 2 years,
because of Members on this Committee, we were able to get some
changes done, and hopefully we will continue to move in the
right direction. But I think it is really--we have to make sure
the public fully understands, this is not a 10 year commitment.
This can't be a 20 year commitment. This has to be a commitment
that we keep both our communities protected during times of
fire, but make sure we don't allow fires to get into the
catastrophic conditions that they have been in at one time in
Arizona.
Wally Covington, a forest expert, world-renowned, actually,
Wally said that a fire in Arizona, at 25,000 acres, would be a
big fire. Now we almost pray for a 25,000 acre fire. So, with
that, Chief, I would like to ask you, and thank you again, what
is the timeline for issuing a new RFP for 4FRI?
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Congressman O'Halleran. I understand
that many Arizonans, and the Arizona businesses, were really
counting on the award of this large-scale 4FRI Project, and I
understand how disappointed they are over it as well. I need
you to know that I am disappointed too. I have talked with the
Regional Foresters, and I have also talked with the evaluation
panel, and understand the decision that they have made, and I
think it was the right decision, considering what the potential
outcomes could have been. I do want you to know, though, that I
am committed to getting this proposal back out very soon, and
certainly in a much, much quicker fashion than we did the first
time around. So, I will pay personal attention to getting that
out ASAP, and I would say that we will be following up with you
so that you, as well as all Arizonans, know the status of the
proposal.
Mr. O'Halleran. I want to thank you for that, Chief Moore.
How are you going to be working with the stakeholders in the
4FRI stakeholder group to show that the Forest Service is
committed to the success of 4FRI, and to rebuild trust? As a
group, we started in the--well, the middle of the last 2
decades ago now to start 4FRI, with the help of the Forest
Service, and environmentalists, and ranchers, and farmers, and
every one of the stakeholders out there that moved along over
the course of a couple years, and then it hit a brick wall. How
are we going to make sure that we are not going to hit that
brick wall again, and that stakeholders are going to have input
into the process?
Mr. Moore. Congressman, through disappointment, trust is
what erodes, and our word may not be as important or as
valuable as our actions. And so I am willing to demonstrate
through action that the Forest Service is trustworthy, and we
are going to do that by demonstrating that we can get this
project done, but we are also going to engage the community in
this project so that it becomes ours, not mine, if that makes
sense. So, we wanted to do this collaboratively, to the extent
that we can, and we are committed to that.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Chief, I have to yield now, as
my time is up. Thank you.
The Chair. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Moore for 5
minutes, from Alabama.
Mr. Moore of Alabama. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank
you, Chief Moore. I appreciate you being here today. We, in
Alabama we have a pretty good reputation of managing our
forests, and actually my district director has a forestry
background, so we are quite familiar with the process. I did
have a question, and I guess it is as good as any. Now so, more
than ever, I believe this Committee agrees that expedited
forest management is needed. In your opinion, what policy
changes would free up the good folks on the ground to be able
to act quickly and effectively to manage and reduce our fuel
loads?
Mr. Moore. Well, Congressman Moore, thank you for that
question. It is one that, I would have to say that I think the
legislation that is being considered now would be one of the
things that could help us greatly. It gives us an opportunity
to do just what we are talking about, and that is to increase
our ability to go out on this landscape and do the necessary
work that needs to be done.
One thing that we spend a lot of time talking about what
happens in the West, but I have to tell you, if the West could
mimic what is happening in the South, that would be our
endgame. Whereas in the South, it comes to fire, we have done a
lot of maintenance burns, prescribed burning. That is the ideal
situation. And when you look at the number of acres treated
across the whole U.S., and you look at us treating 3 million
acres as an agency, over a million and a half of that comes
from the southern region, Region 8, and it is because they have
the conditions there, they also have the culture, that accepts
prescribed burning in a much bigger way than what we do out
west. And so I would say that I am hopeful, based on some of
the legislation that you all are considering in Congress, and I
think that that is going to give us our best opportunity that
we have had in quite some time.
Mr. Moore of Alabama. Thank you, Chief. Actually, that is
my experience. I met with Forestry in Alabama a few weeks ago,
and that was one of the things that they talked about, was just
the control management process, the burns, whatever we have to
do to keep those fuel loads down. And I hope that others will
follow our lead in that respect, and maybe we can get some of
these things under control. But with that, Madam Chair, thank
you so much. I appreciate your time. Thank you, Chief, I
appreciate you attending, and being here as a witness today.
The Chair. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Mr.
Panetta from California 5 minutes.
Mr. Panetta. Outstanding. Thank you, Madam Chair, and of
course, Chief Moore, outstanding to have you here. Absolutely
thrilled when I found out that you were selected to be the next
Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, so congratulations, but also
thank you. Let me express my appreciation for all your help,
and for all of your work as Regional Forester for the Pacific
Southwest Region. I tell you, based on our conversations, based
on our work together, I really couldn't think of a better
person to lead the Forest Service in what I believe, and I
think what we all know, really is an unfortunately more
dangerous era of wildfire years, rather than wildfire seasons,
is what we are facing.
Now, obviously you have been instrumental in the creation
and the formulation of my legislation--I want to thank you as
well--in my legislation, the REPLANT Act, the Wildfire
Emergency Act (H.R. 3534), and the Save Our Forests Act (H.R.
5341), and I look forward to continuing to talk with you as we
continue to push this legislation forward through our process
here, but also to ensure that we can implement our shared
vision of a safer, healthier, and more sustainable forest
across our country.
Now, we have had a couple conversations, and I spoke with
your predecessor, Chief Christiansen, on a number of occasions
about chronic staffing shortages in the Forest Service. And as
you know, look, 80 percent of wildfires in the U.S., at least
based on my numbers, you may have different numbers, but my
numbers are 80 percent are caused by humans, and being--and in
the urban--or the wildland/urban interface, basically the
fastest growing land-use type in this country, that I am sure
you are familiar with. At the same time, as you know, the
Forest Service suffers from chronic staffing shortages, with
several National Forests, including the Los Padres National
Forest, in my district, on the Central Coast of California,
suffering from insufficient law enforcement and recreation
management staff. And that is why I introduced the Save Our
Forests Act.
And so I wanted to get your take on what it would be like
if we just had one additional recreation management position in
each ranger district in the wildland/urban interface? How would
that translate, if at all, into reducing the incidents of
wildfire and improving the long-term health of our forests?
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Congressman Panetta, and, to respond
to the first part of the question, I am actually humbled to
have this opportunity to serve as Chief. I think you are
bringing up something that is really important to us as an
agency. If I go back 20 years ago, we have lost 38 percent of
our non-fire workforce. That 38 percent represents some of
those resource areas that you are talking about: recreation,
land, special uses, forestry, soil and water. All of those
fields, archaeologists, wildlife biologists. So, we have had a
lot of vacant positions because of, as the fire has continued
to increase, and we have had to be more responsive, from a
budget standpoint, to those fires, we have not had the ability
to maintain the staff that we have lost.
Now, we have done really well, because we have looked at
technology, we have improved efficiencies, and we have done a
really good job looking at the outputs, that they are similar
to what they have been. But what happened is that we have an
overworked workforce. We have a workforce that is tired. They
can't continue to work at this pace and scale. We need to fill
many of those positions that we have lost over time due to this
situation that we are talking about today. So, it would be very
helpful.
Mr. Panetta. Understood, understood. I appreciate that. I
appreciate you hitting on the prescribed burns, thank you very
much. It is exactly what my legislation, the Wildfire Emergency
Act, hits on and expands, at least in regards to permitting for
those prescribed burns. And I understand your sentiment about
the West mimicking the South. Obviously, we have a little bit
more hurdles out in the West, as you know well, for a number of
reasons, but hopefully this legislation allows us to get over
those hurdles so that we can have more prescribed burns in our
forests in order to reduce the chances of wildfire.
Moving on, in regards to reforestation, quickly, I have
less than a minute, would lifting the cap on the Reforestation
Trust Fund, as outlined in my REPLANT Act, would that help the
Forest Service address the backlog of reforestation projects
that we have?
Mr. Moore. The short answer is yes, it would. Right now we
are limited by $30 million. We have 1.3 million acres that need
reforestation. We are only able to do about 60,000 acres, at
best, with what is funded now, that doesn't even include the
fires from the Dixie, and this year's fires. So being able to
do that, and develop public-private partnerships, and helping
us do some reforestation, that would be a great way to go. So,
if that cap was removed, it gives us more flexibility to do
these types of things.
Mr. Panetta. Outstanding. I look forward to working with
you, continuing to work with you, and thank you again for your
service in not just fire suppression, but fire prevention.
Thank you, Chief. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Mr. Moore. Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes
the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Ranking Member
Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Madam Chair, thank you so much. Chief Moore,
thank you again. My first question, Chief, the Forest Service
needs to get closer to, or above, preferably, its national
timber targets for the coming year. How much timber do you
foresee the agency harvesting in 2021 and 2022?
Mr. Moore. Go back 2 years, and we had a goal of about 4
billion board-feet that we were planning to accomplish this
past year, but we are probably going to come in at about 60
percent of that. Part of it is the situation that we have been
talking about all morning, that we have had a number of fires
that have burned through planned timber sales, planned
restoration work, and so we have lost the ability to do that.
The other thing is that since we have had so many fires this
year, we have had to take a lot of members that support the
fire in a support role to support the whole fire suppression
efforts that we have had this year. So those are the resources
that were not going to be doing this other work that you are
talking about. So different reasons we are not able to
accomplish that.
Might I also say at this point, though, that I think if we
can get to a point where we talk about what the land needs, I
think we will find that we are doing a lot more than what we
had planned to do, and I think the outcomes would be greater
than what we are planning to do, because it puts the focus on
the wrong part of the conversation, and we need to have a
broader conversation about landscape work, landscape
improvement, and all of the product that comes off of landscape
treatment.
Mr. Thompson. Very good, thank you for that. Now, the 2018
Farm Bill provided the Forest Service with various authorities
intended to help the agency to conduct better management. This
includes reauthorization of the insect and disease categorical
exclusion, as well as categorical exclusion for the Greater
Sage Grouse and mule deer habitat. Has the agency issued
guidance, or gone through the rulemaking process to implement
these authorities, and if so, has the agency utilized these
authorities, and if not, why?
Mr. Moore. Yes. Thank you, Ranking Member. The answer is
yes. We utilized these greatly. Take a look at the Good
Neighbor Authority. We continue to grow relationships with
state and other partners in the GNA, and this has really
allowed us to restore a lot of watersheds and manage forests on
National Forests via agreements or contracts. What you might
also want to know is that we have a total of about 286 GNA
agreements across the U.S., and they cover a variety of
restoration activities that are in place in 38 different
states, and so we have been using the tools that Congress has
allowed us to have.
I think, when I look at timber harvesting for a moment,
timber harvesting under the GNA, it continues to grow. We had
well over 230 million board-feet that were sold in 2020 under
this authority, and this is an increase of about 182 million
board-feet from the year before, so we are seeing a continued
growth in these areas using some of these types of tools. The
other thing that I am really proud of is the CFLRP
(Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program), the
collaborative. We are actually implementing now to reauthorize
CFLR Program, per Congressional direction in the 2018 Farm
Bill. That has been a success because we have had the
opportunity to bring the community of people into deciding what
needs to happen on that landscape, and then everyone is
throwing in their money, so to speak, to make these things
happen. These tools are allowing us to operate in a much more
collaborative fashion.
And the last thing that I will respond to is that the
implementation of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, all of
the regions across the U.S. are really developing projects
using the insect and disease portion of that, and the wildfire
resilience CEs that were contained in the HFRA. And so we are
really pleased for the tools that Congress has provided us, and
I do want you to know that we are utilizing those to the full
extent, and we think that the opportunity continues to grow
with these tools.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chief. Obviously, I am a huge
supporter of the Forest Service research that is done for many
perspectives, the things that we are looking at, and the
research on where specifically the agency needs to perform
restoration activities, reduce the threat of wildfire, and we
can talk about this offline, I will just tee up the question. I
am looking forward to talking with you about how the Forest
Service intends to use this research, to be able to prioritize
those types of projects. And with that, Madam Chair, I am just
about out of time, so I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Thompson.
The Chair now recognizes Congresswoman Schrier from Washington
State.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome, Chief
Moore. I am delighted to meet you, and look forward to working
closely with you to keep our forests healthy, and our
communities safe from wildfire. There have been some very
recurrent themes today, so I hope you will have some really
good opportunities for a path forward after this discussion.
As I am sure you know, the wildfire outlook in my home
State of Washington, and across the whole Pacific Northwest, is
getting more dire. Every year we are seeing more fires, earlier
fires, a longer fire season, and more money and resources used
to suppress those fires. And I wanted to focus on ways to make
our forests healthier, which most of us are talking about
today, to make them more resilient to wildfire, and sort of the
nitty gritty of what we will need to get there. A recent report
from the Washington Department of Natural Resources identified
3 million acres of forestlands just in our state alone in need
of reforestation. A significant percentage of those acres are
in my district, in rural central Washington, including about
700,000 acres in the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests,
and the towns here are some of the most at-risk locations for
wildfire in the nation.
Our state is doing some incredible work. The Washington
State Department of Natural Resources local fire districts,
counties, nonprofits, private forests are doing this kind of
work, and they are conducting the controlled burns and the
mechanical thinning that we have all talked about today as much
as possible, but they face some really big barriers, and one of
those barriers is the need to partner with the Forest Service.
And in places like Chelan County, 70 percent of the land is
owned by the Forest Service, and so, no matter how good a job
our state does, and private forest-holders do, 70 percent is on
you.
And to that end, my colleagues and I are working to bolster
the Forest Service resources. We got the National Prescribed
Fire Act (H.R. 3442) that increases Federal investment with
Ranking Member LaMalfa, and we have the National Forest
Restoration and Remediation Act (H.R. 4489) to allow the Forest
Service to get interest money, and then we have the bipartisan
infrastructure bill that puts more money in for forest health.
I understand that you and George Geissler, Washington State
Forester, go way back, and I would just love to encourage you
to continue to work with George, and with our Commissioner of
Public Lands, Hilary Franz, and the local fire departments to
increase the pace and scale of fuel reduction. They are ready.
They are willing, they are excited to work with you, and they
just want that relationship to work toward better, and if you
could deal kind of with the details.
I know one of those details we have talked about is how do
we get more personnel? How can you hire more people, because
you do need people that do this work. And we have talked
about--I think many of us were surprised that firefighters were
not making $15 an hour. That still seems incredibly low. Local
fire departments pay more, and so of course you were losing
people. How can you address this issue of staffing and funding?
Do you have specific plans to ramp up the number of people you
have?
Mr. Moore. So, thank you, Congresswoman Schrier, I really
appreciate that question. I talked about the 38 percent
reduction in our resource-related programs from 20 years ago,
and so, if we have to replace those positions, our funding
needs to reflect that. So, I am hopeful, based on some of the
legislation that is currently in Congress, and I think that if
that does happen, it gives us our best chance that we have had
in a long time to fill some of those necessary vacant
positions. George and I talk often, George Geissler, the State
Forester there, and we do go back a long ways. And we do have
some opportunities to do a lot more than what we are currently
doing.
What I am pleased about is the state shared stewardship
agreements that we have been signing with the governors. I
think we have about 46 of those now. That, coupled with GNA
authorities, gives us the opportunity to work across
jurisdictional boundaries and landscapes. And so now I think we
have some authorities that will allow us to do that, but we
need our budgets increased somewhat to hire some of those
really needed positions, to spend the time developing those
agreements, and to spend the time going out on the ground,
working with that local community, and engaging them in how we
should go about in making those improvements that protect----
Ms. Schrier. They are ready to dive in and get to work, and
so whatever barriers are there, if you could work to eliminate
those, I think we could make even more progress just relying on
state, local, even private, and Ranger work forces. So, thank
you. I understand we will have a second round, and I will get
to more questions then.
Mr. Moore. Thank you.
Ms. Schrier. I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes
Mr. Johnson from South Dakota. And, because we are making
excellent time, and there is interest in doing a second round,
just to let all of the Members know who may be interested, we
will do a second round of questions, and thank you for your
willingness to stick with us, Chief Moore. Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, thanks, Chief Moore. It is great to have
you. The Black Hills National Forest is one of the only forests
that had had a regular monthly meeting as part of an advisory
board. And, as you would expect, the advisory board had
representatives from all kinds of user groups. Timber folks,
state and local governments, the Norbeck Society, trails,
permittees, et cetera. And so, way back in June of 2020, the
coordinator for this local forest advisory board submitted
their charter renewal, a list of new members, everything that
was needed, and this was 6 months prior to the deadline for
doing so.
Now, since that time, again, June of 2020, there has been
no action taken in D.C., and so the forest advisory board
hasn't been authorized to meet, either virtually or in person,
for the entire year. And, of course, this is at a time when
there are a lot of very big issues going on with the Black
Hills National Forest, a time when you would think input from
this broad group of stakeholders would be valuable to the
Forest Service and to the forest. And during that time, our
office has reached out a number of times to Forest Service
liaisons, and it just seems like we can't get any real
communication, we can't get any movement by the regional or
national office to renew this forest advisory board. And so I
guess my question, Chief Moore, is just, I mean, can we get
some sort of a commitment from you to work with us on getting
this advisory board reauthorized?
Mr. Moore. Congressman Johnson, thank you for that
question, and this is one that I have actually been personally
briefed on. And, after the brief, I agree that the board
improved collaborative opportunities, and relationship with
individuals, and it hasn't happened yet, but I am pleased to
report to you that the package is in the final stages of the
clearing process as we speak, so I would look for that to
happen fairly soon. But I agree with you wholeheartedly on what
has occurred over time.
Mr. Johnson. Chief, fairly soon, just kind of give me a
ballpark to set expectations. Are we talking days, weeks,
months?
Mr. Moore. Well, I don't think it is, certainly not months,
but, we have done everything that we need to do as an agency,
so I think the clearing process now has to take place over in
the Department, and I know that they are working on that really
hard. And while I can't give you a specific time, I can tell
you that it is in the final stages of being cleared.
Mr. Johnson. Thanks, Chief. Madam Chair, I would just note
this as an important part of our oversight responsibility. That
is why I want to thank you for this hearing. Deadlines drive
achievement, and I think Chief Moore clearly came prepared
today, and was ready to address a lot of our questions, and so
these hearings do make a difference in how the agencies respond
to our needs.
Chief, another one. As you certainly know, in the Black
Hills our local volunteer fire departments, they volunteered
for the initial attack of these forest fires, and grassland
fires, and I think one of the frustrations they have shared
with me is this 24 hour rule. So they can be on site with the
initial attack, they are getting close to the end of the 24
hour period, they feel like they are on the cusp of having the
fire contained. They are pulled off the fire, even though
sufficient Forest Service resources are not yet in place for a
seamless handoff to close this fire out. And so I just wanted
some insight from you, what is the statutory or regulatory--why
is this 24 hour rule in place, where does it come from, and is
there any flexibility so we can do a better job of closing
these fires out?
Mr. Moore. Yes, thank you, Congressman. Yes, so that
usually comes through a mutual aid response--these fires, and I
think, as we look at updating the agreements, these are the
types of things that I think we need to be documenting so that
when we have the opportunity to update the mutual aid in
response, that we allow flexibility geographically. One of our
biggest challenges is that, and for good reason, we go out with
direction that is national in scope, and what that does
sometimes is it doesn't allow flexibility for that local
geographic area.
And so we want to find the--really, the sweet spot in these
agreements to allow flexibility at that local level, as long as
it meets the national intent. And so we are going to be working
toward that ideal, and hopefully we will be able to respond to
these same issues that you are talking about through the mutual
aid agreement. But it doesn't just happen there in South
Dakota. This is a common problem in many other locations. And I
think that we are taking notes from this hearing that these are
some of the things that we think we need to take on to improve
the fire service, and how we respond as a collective group.
Because I will tell you, the volunteer fire department, the
local fire departments, we couldn't do this without them. And
so if there are challenges, we need to deal with those
directly.
Mr. Johnson. Well, Chief, I have a third question, which I
don't have time to ask, and so I will submit it for the record,
and look forward to getting a response from your team. It deals
with the Four Forest Restoration Initiative, and to what extent
that effort can be expanded into the Black Hills National
Forest and elsewhere. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Moore. Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you, Chief Moore, for your very detailed
answers, and I now recognize Congressman Costa from California.
Mr. Costa. Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to sit
in on the Subcommittee here. You and I have had a number of
conversations about the importance of the role your
Subcommittee plays, and invitation to have you come out to
California still stands, as we deal with these challenging
issues affecting America's forests.
Chief, we are excited about your participation and your
career. It has been long established. By the way, I like that
backdrop. Is that Mount Shasta, or where might you be there?
Mr. Moore. Yes, Mount Shasta is in the background.
Mr. Costa. Okay. That is part of God's country in
California. We want to keep it that way, but we have had
horrific fires. Let us stipulate for the record that I think
everyone is aware of, that we are in a crisis mode, as it
relates to the conditions of American forests caused by not
only climate change, but a multitude of factors. Would you
agree?
Mr. Moore. Yes, I would.
Mr. Costa. And we no longer have a fire season, certainly
in California and the West, but we have a fire year, it seems,
right?
Mr. Moore. Right.
Mr. Costa. Are you satisfied with the status quo, Chief?
Mr. Moore. Congressman, I think you know me well enough to
know that I am not. I don't think anyone is.
Mr. Costa. Good. When is the last time we have updated the
U.S. Forest Service Land Management Plan?
Mr. Moore. So, they generally run anywhere around 10 to 15
years.
Mr. Costa. That is not adequate, do you believe?
Mr. Moore. Well, it would be if they were living documents
were we make changes----
Mr. Costa. But they are not?
Mr. Moore. No. Well, not completely. Some are, but
generally----
Mr. Costa. Would you agree that it is time that we really
take the effort to update the forest management plans for all
of these forests that are being impacted, not only in the West,
but wherever else it is appropriate?
Mr. Moore. Yes, and we are in the process, Congressman, of
about 100 updates, 100 forest plans----
Mr. Costa. And how much will that cost, to update the
forest management plans?
Mr. Moore. Well, I don't have a number yet on how much that
would cost----
Mr. Costa. Well, we need to know that so we provide you
with the resources. And then, once the plans are updated for
the forests throughout the country, you need to have the money
to implement the plan. I was in a hearing a year ago, and they
estimated that, to truly do the work over a period of time that
is necessary to provide proper forest management, we are
talking about somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 billion a
year for a period of at least 6 to 8 years. Could you check
those numbers, and verify, and get back to the Members of the
Committee? Because, as we look at the reconciliation effort, as
we look at the budget year coming up, the crisis mode that we
are in, we need to address this issue. Would you not agree?
Mr. Moore. Yes. I will certainly look into those numbers,
Congressman.
Mr. Costa. And if we have those numbers, I think we are in
a better position to provide you all the forest management
tools you need so that we can address the challenges that we
face of properly managing our forests. When you look at the
monies that we are paying each year for fire suppression,
frankly, we spend all the money that we set aside for forest
management, and we end up in the billions of dollars spending
money for fire suppression. And, frankly, if we continue in
this vein, I don't think we are ever going to deal with the
crisis, or provide the forests the proper management they
deserve. Would you agree?
Mr. Moore. Yes, I would agree with the majority of that,
sir.
Mr. Costa. We need an updated plan, so then we need the
financial resources to give you all the tools in the management
toolbox to do the work that provides the certainty that forests
in the future, with all the factors we are dealing with, that
include climate change, will be there for the next generations
of Americans to come, for all the multiple uses that they
serve. I mean, is that not the goal?
Mr. Moore. Absolutely one of the goals.
Mr. Costa. Let me ask you a little bit about, with all the
horrific fires we have had in California and the West, the
partnerships between state and Federal. You have been in
California for a good time. CAL FIRE, and I know about our
California response, and our efforts over the last several
years. How would you describe the partnership between the
Forest Service and states like California, and the necessity of
continuing to improve and work on them?
Mr. Moore. Well, keep in mind too, the fire service is much
bigger than just CAL FIRE and the Forest Service. And I would
say in general, if I was to focus specifically there in
California, I think relationships are great. In fact, I think
that is why we are having so much success in that state, is
because of the fire service in general, and how it is working
together. I mean, there are always problems when people work
together, but I can assure you that the leadership of those
agencies and those local fire departments, they are committed
to working through whatever issue that may come up, but the
relationship is solid.
Mr. Costa. Well, my time has expired, and Madam Chair,
thank you for allowing me to participate, but I would think it
would be helpful, Chief, if you were to provide, if you have
not already, a list of areas that you think we need to work on
together to allow you to better do your job. And thank you, for
myself, thank the firemen and -women, and the people at the
U.S. Forest Service for the heroic jobs that you are engaged in
here always, and certainly in terms of recent years during
these really terrible fire seasons we are dealing with.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Congressman Costa.
The Chair. Thank you very much, Chief Moore, for your time.
We are going to do a second round of questions, for anyone
interested. I will continue in the same order, and I will begin
by recognizing myself for 5 additional minutes.
Chief Moore, in answers to prior questions you talked about
the 38 percent loss in staffing that you have experienced
across non-firefighting roles. Could you just give us a little
bit more of a background of what those roles are, and what the
impact has been on your agency?
Mr. Moore. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, the type of
positions are those resource positions that actually do a lot
of the resource work on the ground. And--whether it is doing
NEPA, which the Congressman just mentioned, our forest
prioritization but also it is going and putting structures out
on the ground for wildlife purposes. It is going out and doing
surveys, looking at some of the sensitive species that are
taking place. It is also our foresters that go out and look at
the landscape and design our silvicultural practices by getting
at some of the disturbances that have taken place on the
landscape. So, it is those resource-related issues, watershed
improvements, whether it is a soil scientist, hydrologists,
some of those types of specialty programs where we improve the
landscape so that the types of fires that happen, it is not
happening in a catastrophic way.
Most of the fires--most of the land out West is developed
through fires, and so you have a lot of fire-adapted ecosystems
out there. And so fire is a natural part of the landscape, and
we need to make sure that fire continues to be a natural part
of the landscape, but through controlled conditions. And we
just have not been able to spend the necessary amount of time
making improvements on the ground that would also make that
fire behave differently as it moves across the landscape.
The Chair. And, Chief Moore, what I hear you describing is
an investment, really, in preventative efforts so that we are
preventing those catastrophic fires, so that we are making
investments in the personnel who will prepare us, and ensure
that the land is not as susceptible to the sorts of
catastrophic fire, is that a correct assessment, that it is the
preventative?
Mr. Moore. That is correct, Madam Chair.
The Chair. And the types of skillsets that those employees
would bring, is there a challenge that you all are facing that,
as you have experienced loss of these personnel predominantly
related to funding, are you also then challenged by a loss of
skillset and knowledge in terms of resiliency in wild forest
management?
Mr. Moore. Yes. We have certainly lost a lot of skills, and
we have tried to mitigate that somewhat by partnering with
groups and other entities that have those skills.
The Chair. Okay.
Mr. Moore. And so now what you see is a gradual shift in
how the Forest Service is being managed. We are working more
through others and with others than what we have in the past,
and that has been a really positive thing. It is just that we
need to have more capacity internally so that we can continue
to work in that way, because I think that this is the new
generation of natural resource management in this country. But
we need to have those critical positions filled that will allow
us to do more of this.
The Chair. Great. And, Chief Moore, well, we passed the
wildfire funding fix last year, and I understand about $2.7
billion of this funding has already been used thus far this
year. Can you talk about how this funding authority impacts
your ability to combat the growing number and increasing
intensity of wildfires, and how it might overall--how it is
useful, or how you all are using it? Any comments on that
funding and its value to you?
Mr. Moore. Yes. First of all, I want to thank Congress for
the fire funding fix. It has really stopped the bleeding of
these other program areas, and so I think that that is been
really good. I think now what we need to do is to be able to
build those programs up so that we can do more of the work that
I talked about earlier. But certainly the fire funding fix was
one of the single most important things I think Congress could
have done for the Forest Service in recent years.
The Chair. And I hope we will continue to talk about that
program into the future, in our oversight function, talk in
greater detail about the benefits, challenges, and certainly
the way that money has been deployed. In my last 40 seconds, I
would just open it up to any other comments that you would like
to make before the Committee, focused on your goals or
priorities.
Mr. Moore. I want to thank Congress for their interest in
what happens on America's forests and grasslands. And I
appreciate the opportunity to work with Congress as we move
into this tenure that I am in. I am just so appreciative.
The Chair. Thank you very much, Chief Moore. I now
recognize Ranking Member LaMalfa for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you again, Madam Chair. Let us talk
quickly about what we can do on the ground more immediately. We
talked before about the BAER, the BAER Response, called the
Burned Area Emergency Response Teams. They are out doing the
assessments post-fire of what we have, what we can be doing.
Now, I think the Committee has the ability to put on the screen
a map we have of what is known as the Feather River Watershed,
and illustrate what we are looking at with the immediate
response that we really should be trying for.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the map referred to is located on p. 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you see on the screen there, the area in red is pretty
much all this year, and that represents well over a million
acres combined, the Beckwourth Fire, the Dixie Fire, and those
surrounding colors are just in the last 4 years of fire, all
except for one tiny one that was back in--well, tiny,
relatively--I think the Moonlight Fire in 2007, the scar you
can still see. What I am looking for Chief Moore, we talk about
looking at things in long-term, but that Feather River
Watershed is an area that services in the water that is
delivered and stored, and ultimately makes its way to
Californians. 25 million Californians rely on the water that
comes from the state water project that is primarily filled by
this area.
So, we talk about restoration, whether it is going to be in
one bill form, I had a legislation in a previous bill. We have
to pounce on this right now, because we are talking about the
erosion, we are talking about the ash and the material that can
be washing down the hill in the next couple of large rains we
hope to have in the winter, right? It is going to greatly
affect the watershed and the water supply situation for our
whole state. So, what does the forest need in order to start
immediate restoration in a volume, or a pace and scale, so to
speak, that can really, really make a difference in a short
amount of time? We have a window of time right now, since we
are still in September that we could be doing a lot before a
rainy season ensues. What could we pounce on right now to be
effective on limiting damage from erosion, et cetera?
Mr. Moore. Okay. Thank you, Ranking Member LaMalfa. So the
first step that needs to be done are assessments. We need to
send teams out to look at what are those emergency types of
things that need to take place immediately? And so that is the
Burned Area Emergency Response that you had talked about, BAER.
So that is taking place now. We have a need--based on this
year's fires, we have a need of about 216 assessments that need
to be done. We have currently completed about 136. We are
currently in the process of looking at the Dixie now. We have
already looked at the Beckwourth, and we have--I think we have
committed somewhere around--I think about $430,000-$440,000,
and we are expecting to kick that up to much higher than that,
based on the continuous needs that we find.
In terms of the Dixie Fire, I agree with you, that is in a
critical watershed. The Feather River Watershed is really
critical to the water supply, as you have indicated, and so my
immediate goal is to bring just a small team of key leaders in
the agency out so that they can get a perspective of the amount
of work that needs to be done. We also want to line up working
with private partners and others, because this is going to take
a lot of us working together to try to get that area done.
Mr. LaMalfa. Chief Moore, I am sorry, time is limited, but
we have an immediacy we need to have here. We need to be
hauling straw, and we need to be, shaping waterways in some
fashion, and not be devastated this year. And I appreciate that
you have the teams out there doing that, but we need to take
that information and turn it into immediate action, so that
is--and I proposed a very large amount of money in a recent
amendment to legislation here. It didn't make it, because the
size and the cost is going to be huge of what we are looking
at.
Mr. Moore. I agree with that, and just for your
information, some of those activities are currently taking
place out there, but that was such a large area, it is going to
take a little bit of time to do a full assessment of what the
needs are out there. But I agree, that is something that is
very important to the watershed of the state----
Mr. LaMalfa. Can partnering with private industry help
speed this up? The people in the industry, timber industry, can
they be a partner to help on this with some of the dead tree
removal, and putting something down on the ground that will
stop erosion and the habitat damage that is going to happen?
Mr. Moore. Yes, absolutely they can, Congressman, and I
would have an expectation that they would be engaged with us,
as well as other members of the community, to get some cover
back onto the ground, and get some of these structures in
place.
Mr. LaMalfa. Okay. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chair. The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member
Thompson, if he would like to ask another round of questions.
Mr. Thompson. Thanks, Madam Chair. Chief, I am going to
circle around and give you an opportunity to respond. I know
the Forest Service has, again, done new research on where
specifically the agency needs to perform restoration activities
to reduce the threat of wildfire. So, the question that we ran
out of time on, how does the Forest Service intend to use this
research and prioritize such projects?
Mr. Moore. So thank you, Ranking Member. So, as we
indicated before, we have about 66 million acres that need to
be treated. Our researchers have been engaging with us, and we
feel that if we treat about 20 million acres of those, that we
would have a positive impact on the 66 million acres there. I
think the key is to have strategically placed landscape
treatments across the area. We know we must protect
communities, and also the infrastructure that those communities
depend on. We also know that we need to protect the wildland as
well, but life and property would be our first priorities, and
that is where we are focused on now.
Mr. Thompson. Very good. And, Chief, I know this is your
first public appearance before this Committee, and we really
thank you for that, much appreciate you, and your leadership.
As you may know, our Committee recently marked up a
reconciliation measure that included many policy changes
impacting the Forest Service, and some $40 billion in forest-
related investments, and, quite frankly, did that without any
public hearings, any Committee discussions. So as Chief of the
Forest Service, were you asked to provide input or testimony on
those provisions within the budget reconciliation legislation?
Mr. Moore. I believe that has taken place before I assumed
this position, so I have not personally been engaged at that
level, to answer your question.
Mr. Thompson. Okay. So, to the best of your knowledge,
since you came into your position as Forest Service Chief, and
we are happy to have you there, there was no request that came
from this Committee, or the Senate Committee, or somewhere else
for any kind of consultation, or to provide testimony or
technical assistance on that bill?
Mr. Moore. Yes. Well, I am sure there is, at least I hope
so, but I am not aware of what that might be at this point,
Congressman.
Mr. Thompson. I would certainly hope so too, but if you are
not aware in your position, and, again, I reinforce we really
appreciate you having you there. It is kind of sad, this is
what we get when they don't allow this Committee, the
Agriculture Committee, to do its job. It is like throwing money
at a wall. In my opening statement I identified the fact, the
lacking of authorities, just how flawed that is. Congress
should not just throw money at--we know wildfires are an issue.
We know having healthy forests are so important, but that is
why we have an Agriculture Committee, so that we can have
hearings, we can have debate, we can have delivered a process.
And this bill that is going to be voted on, and it was shoved
through this Committee, is just alarming, absolutely alarming.
I don't think we want the leadership of either party writing
our farm bills, including the forestry title.
Now, can you shed, just changing gears with the time
remaining, can you shed any light on the working relationship
between the Forest Service and CAL FIRE? I have been hearing
reports of issues, and now, with the 60 Minutes report that
response to the Caldor Fire was delayed due to conflict, it
seems like this needs to be addressed.
Mr. Moore. I think I have different information than you
do, Congressman. I am not aware of any problems between the
Forest Service and CAL FIRE. As I indicated earlier, that
relationship is really solid, so I am not aware of anything
that might be going on.
Mr. Thompson. All right. And I certainly don't take
credible references from the media, so I am glad to--certainly
work with Mr. LaMalfa. I yield to Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Would gentleman yield? I ran out of time on
previous thoughts, but indeed there is a lot on the ground that
needs to be looked at, Chief Moore, on the relationship there,
people that will come up to me off the record and tell me that
the philosophy between the two entities on how to attack fire,
deal with fire, who is going to be in charge, there are big
problems. And yes, whether it is 60 Minutes, or what have you,
there are people on the ground that--been feeling like regular
firefighters that approached 60 Minutes about this, or were
approached, that feel very strongly about this. So, we have a
lot of patching to do on that relationship with the strain that
is been on, and the different philosophies on fighting fire.
The bottom line is--the American people, the public, they
don't care what color the fire truck is that shows up to their
fire, whether it is light green, or red, or yellow, or what
have you. They just want action. They want their community
safe, and that. So I thank Mr. Thompson for yielding to me.
The Chair. Thank you very much to the Ranking Members. The
Chair now recognizes Mr. O'Halleran for 5 minutes.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am just going to
have a couple of comments based on what I heard, and a couple
of questions. My district has all of six National Forests. Some
of them are in direct--bordering on the Grand Canyon, which is
in my district. And, first of all, let me thank the
Administration for putting it up to $15 an hour, but that is a
ridiculous number. These firefighters are away from their
families for an extended period of time. I have been to a large
amount of Type 1 and Type 2 incidents, where I have seen these
young people coming off the line exhausted, going into small
tents and sleeping for a short period of time, and then getting
back up, and going out and risking their lives to save
communities and our natural resources. And that is $15 an hour.
I don't know where that number came from, but let us hope that
we in Congress can do a lot better than that. And I know a lot
of the firefighters that come from local jurisdictions that are
side by side with them, and working very hard also, but making
a lot more money than they are, and risking the same amount of
life.
The other thing is the 38 percent loss of workforce. As you
indicated, Chief, that was over a number of years. That was
something that was said time, and time, and time again. I have
said it the entire time I was in the legislature. I asked
Congress to do something. Since I have been in Congress, we
have tried to find ways to address that issue. Some of it has
been addressed, but the timeline is too short to be able to get
it to where we need it to be. But the idea that we just said,
well, we will just fight these fires, and cut the workforce
down. And, of course, NEPA, and all those people are taken off
the lines. Our Type 1 people come right from the Forest
Service. Our firefighters, they come right from the Forest
Service. I see the offices when they can't be as productive
because they are out fighting fires.
And Mr. Panetta talked about law enforcement. Red Rock
Ranger District, in my district, has millions of visitors every
year. They have two law enforcement officers. I am a former law
enforcement officer, and I know that those officers are hardly
out there because of days off, because of sickness, because of
court time, because of paperwork. There is no law enforcement
in the Red Rock Ranger District, or, for that matter, in the
million plus acres of the Coconino National Forest, or many
other National Forests around this country. Again, Congress has
been not willing to put the money forward, and I am glad to
hear people start to talk about landscapes' work.
Now, we just had a couple of fires up in the district--
well, actually, a lot of them, 14 in one weekend, but the
uncharacteristic fire severity is causing more post-fire
flooding. Northern Arizonans know all too well. This summer,
those living in Flagstaff neighborhoods below the Museum Fire
from 2019 that the burn area is continuing to face severe
flooding in areas that never flooded before. And then when, as
you know Chief, when this stuff comes out of those mountains,
it not only brings a ton of stuff down, but at the speeds it
comes down those mountains, it just moves right into
neighborhoods, and just rips people apart. And the intense fire
behavior jeopardizes the long-term watershed health and water
quality. What is your opinion on what we can do? I heard you
say 60,000 acres of funding. Well, that is near ridiculous, as
far as why haven't we moved, as fires have increased, up to the
higher levels?
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Congressman O'Halleran. I think you
stated the problem very well. I just want you to know that we
are doing everything we can with what we have, and if we have
more, we will do more. But, that is for you all to decide, in
terms of what more looks like. I can assure you, though, we are
committed to the job that you all have given us as Federal
employees, and we are also committed to working with people in
the communities, and our neighbors to look at landscape-type
treatments, rather than just jurisdictional boundaries only.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thanks, Chief. I just have to say that the
BAER issue is huge, the idea that we also have the law
enforcement issue, and you and I will talk about that later at
some time. And Madam Chair, I will be sending in more questions
for follow-up, and also documentation for the record.
The Chair. Thank you very much. And the Chair now
recognizes Congresswoman Schrier from Washington for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, I wanted to
continue. We were talking about the importance of thinning
forests, and one of the solutions is having mills, and in
Washington State we have very little mill infrastructure left.
And before harvesting and milling was done in a very
irresponsible way. Now we know how to do it really responsibly,
and support an industry, and make our forests healthier at the
same time. And right now, without a mill nearby, it just
doesn't pencil out. Public and private landowners have to truck
logs 150 miles away to the nearest mills, high cost, they end
up losing money. And so, locating a mill in Chelan County,
where there is, again, 70 percent of the forest land is Forest
Service land would be such a huge win-win situation. It would
bring a ton of money to the Forest Service, so you would raise
wages and benefits, and pay people more, and get more employees
in. It would support more affordable housing, it would make us
less reliant on foreign steel, because we could build with
cross-laminated timber, and it would create a ton of family-
wage jobs.
And so I have been in touch with our Regional Forester,
Glenn Casamassa, about this, and just would welcome the
opportunity to talk with you both more about whether we could
have reliable dependence on Forest Service logs. Can you talk a
little bit about that, who could go in and do the logging if
you don't have the personnel to do it? Like, how can we make
this work?
Mr. Moore. So, Congresswoman, I would first suggest that
maybe we need to sit down and talk about what the opportunities
are, and then we could land on what the appropriate tool would
be to do that. It is so very hard to answer that question in
just a minute or so, but I would love to be able to sit down
with you and Glenn, and others that may need to be involved, to
talk about this very issue, because the same applies in so many
other locations.
Ms. Schrier. I have even better. You are invited, and I
will send you a formal invitation, to come out to Washington
State and lay eyes on areas of forest that have been
appropriately managed, and what happened there when a fire came
through, areas that haven't and what happened there, and truly
just the tremendous potential for a big win-win. So please come
to Washington State.
I also wanted to highlight one particular landscape
restoration project that is really important in my district.
And I don't think you are going to have answers to these
questions now, but I will throw them out there, and you can
just reply later. Maybe you can even reply when you come out to
Washington State. This one is the Upper Wenatchee Pilot
Project, and I will be following up, as I mentioned, with your
team, but I wanted to know when an environmental assessment
will be available for the public to review. Also, when we can
expect the final NEPA decision, and when we might be able to
see work actually starting on the ground? Because while this
project is stalled, land within the treatment area is currently
burning as we speak.
Mr. Moore. So, Congresswoman, I did get a briefing on this,
very brief, but what I can tell you, though, is that the
expectation is that NEPA should be out in spring or early
summer. I think, looking at the purpose and needs for that
project, I think it was really solid, it was really laid out
well, and so now it is just a matter of working through the
process. But I will look more into this, and we can have a
follow-up conversation on some specifics.
Ms. Schrier. That would be fantastic. Obviously the earlier
the better. Fire season starts early, so if we get that going
in spring, that would help us with the next season. I think I
will leave it there, and yield back the rest of my time. Thank
you again for coming today, and facing some of these really big
challenges. We understand how big they are, and how much work
you have cut out for you, and also how important it is. Thanks.
I yield back.
The Chair. Before we adjourn today, I invite the Ranking
Member to share any closing comments that he may have.
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, I will be brief
on the close here. And I appreciate the comments by Ms.
Schrier, what she was saying there, we are going to need a
place for this material to go, and we have a massive amount of
material, so we do need to inspire those that want to invest in
the infrastructure to process wood. Whether we are going to
make chips, whether we are going to be able to salvage some saw
logs, whatever we can turn this material into. Biochar,
something that needs to be explored more. So I appreciate that.
We have to have people that invest, they need to have
confidence that they can be, over a 30 year period that they
will have a steady supply that we can guarantee from Federal
land, so that is extremely important.
Also, a lot of good, positive comments and thoughts in
Committee here today. I was working with Jimmy P. there, or Mr.
Panetta, on the legislation we are working on together, along
with our Chair, with part of it being prescribed fire. Now,
prescribed fire is not going to be popular, maybe, at all
times, but when you do a comparison of a controlled situation
there, and how we are going to reduce the fuel load we have,
when we do it wisely, the right time of year, the right
atmospheric conditions, it can be extremely effective, and very
minimal on annoyance, so that it all goes together.
I appreciate Mr. Costa bringing up that the forest plan
needing an update for many years. I also would caution that we
also move very quickly on the ground, as we can, with executive
actions or what have you, in order to do what we can to offset
the problems we have had with current fire, and the salvage
needs to be done. An update of a plan, Chief Moore, I don't
know if that might take 3 or 4 years or what, but we obviously,
in my view, really need to move quickly and adeptly on where we
need to go for the immediate cleanup, and what we can do to get
ahead of the curve on setting fire breaks, and other things
that help defend communities and more forestland.
And also Ms. Pingree, she has been very kind in this
Committee, and other previous ones, on looking at the
situation, and I know she wants to be a partner as well, with
that, I think we had a really good start today on this
discussion during this 2021 fire season of where we can go. So,
Madam Chair, I really appreciate your diligence, and for making
this time for us today. Thank you again, Chief Moore, for your
time, and let us continue to work together, and get all this
together, and get CAL FIRE and U.S. Forest Service thing ironed
out too. We will have more to follow up with you on that as
well. Anyway, thanks a lot, and I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. LaMalfa. Again, I want
to thank you, Chief Moore, for joining us today, for taking the
time to answer our questions, to engage with this Committee. I
hope that it is the beginning of a very productive conversation
and relationship as you continue to grow in your role. Again,
congratulations on the role that you have assumed.
I think the conversations of today have been pretty broad,
everything from the pay of firefighters to the stability of the
workforce, the challenges that the Forest Service is facing,
that you are facing in hiring and retention. Those are things
that need to be at the forefront of our mind. The conversations
related to science-based treatments, prevention, and forest
maintenance certainly is something that we talk about in this
Committee, and so it was great to have you bring your
perspective of what is currently happening, and what more needs
to happen. Conversations related to lack of mill infrastructure
throughout the United States, and what that actually means when
we are looking at some of our prevention intentions. My
colleague from Maine, who spoke about cross-laminated timber,
and some of the forest product research that is happening
within the Forest Service I think is really bringing a fulsome
discussion to the work that your agency does, and, frankly, the
focus that we, as a Subcommittee, do have on the beginning to
the end discussion related to how not only are we fighting the
forest fires, but, frankly, how are we preventing them, and
what are some of the hindrances and challenges that you and
your colleagues face?
And certainly the threat of wildfire continues to increase
every year, and we have heard some of the real challenges faced
back home in the districts of so many of the Members on this
Committee. So, I appreciate you listening to the very specific
stories and impact that it has had on the communities
represented by this Committee. I do look forward to our
continued work together. Certainly the task moving forward
continues to be daunting, but I hope that we will be a partner
in ensuring that the United States Congress is doing all that
we can do to prevent forest fires, to prevent the economic and
land devastation, and certainly to be supportive of the men and
women on the front lines of that.
And so, as we close out this hearing, I just want to convey
my appreciation to your entire workforce, and particularly the
firefighters who are risking their lives to keep our
communities safe, and certainly we are so grateful for their
service, and we will continue to work with you on issues of
oversight and issues of engagement to ensure that the work that
they are performing is optimized, and that we are as supportive
as we can, because certainly we are grateful.
Under the Rules of the Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
additional material and supplementary written responses from
the witness to any question posed by a Member. This hearing of
the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Letter by Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger, a Representative in
Congress from Virginia; on Behalf of Jessica Turner, Executive
Director, Outdoor Recreation Roundtable

Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger, Hon. Doug LaMalfa
Chair, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Conservation and Subcommittee on Conservation and
Forestry, Forestry,
House Agriculture Committee, House Agriculture Committee,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.

Dear Chair Spanberger, Ranking Member LaMalfa, and Members of the
Committee,

On behalf of the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable (ORR), thank you for
bringing attention to the impact of this year's extreme wildfire
activity on communities around the United States through last week's
hearing on strategies to respond to and mitigate wildfire threats. As
representatives for the $788 billion outdoor recreation industry, we
have watched closely as fires forced closures of cherished recreation
areas and forced cutbacks in many of the businesses that sustain our
industry. Because of outdoor recreation's notable economic,
environmental, and public health benefits, we have vested interest in
policies that help improve both management of and resilience towards
wildfire risk on our public lands and waters.
ORR is the nation's leading coalition of outdoor recreation trade
associations--made up of 34 national members, as well as other
nonprofit organizations and business entities--serving more than
110,000 businesses. According to the most recent data from the Bureau
of Economic Analysis released last year, the recreation industry
generated $788 billion in economic output, accounted for 2.1 percent of
GDP and 5.2 million American jobs, and was growing faster than the
economy as a whole in every indicator.
COVID-19 and the desire for safe, family-friendly activities during
the pandemic made 2020 the biggest year for outdoor recreation
participation and sales in American history. A survey published in May
2020 found that 81 percent of Americans had already spent time outside
at that point in the pandemic, with 32.5 percent turning to outdoor
recreation for the first time. 8.1 million more Americans hiked in 2020
vs. 2019 (a 16.3 percent increase), and the total percentage of
Americans who participate in outdoor recreation rose from the previous
10 years. Many sectors within the industry saw record participation
numbers in the past year: freshwater fishing added 3.4 million
participants in 2020, shipments of RVs reached an all-time high in the
first quarter of 2021, new model powersports sales increased 40 percent
in 2020 over 2019 levels, and retail unit sales of new powerboats in
the U.S. increased by 12 percent in 2020 over 2019. These figures
capture our nation's recognition over the past year that outdoor
recreation provides significant physical health, mental health, and
community benefits. Importantly, new participants in outdoor recreation
are younger, predominantly female, and more diverse.
Despite this inspiring tailwind for outdoor recreation
participation, this year's wildfires have severely impacted the outdoor
recreation economy's ability to function at its fullest potential,
particularly across western states. To ensure safety for the public,
land management agencies took unprecedented steps to close wide regions
within national forests and parks, including the Boundary Waters Canoe
Area Wilderness in the Superior National Forest, Kings Canyon, Lassen
Volcanic, and Sequoia National Parks, or all 18 of California's
National Forests. Each of these closures has a ripple effect, impacting
the gateway communities and small businesses that benefit from these
treasured public lands and waters. For example, Sierra Mountain Center,
a 40 year old guiding company based in Bishop, CA, was hit hard by USFS
closures in both 2020 and 2021, putting guides out of works and
disappointing guests who traveled from thousands of miles after being
forced to close for 3 weeks in 2021 with just 36 hours' notice. And it
is not only the communities and businesses that are impacted by
wildfire, but the consumers they serve: Air Quality Index (AQI)
readings across the West surpassed healthy levels for much of the
summer as smoke impacted iconic outdoor recreation destinations,
forcing cutbacks in recreational habits and visitation.
We share the concerns of the Committee about the unavoidable role
of wildfire in communities around the United States and are prepared to
work closely on strategies to reduce future wildfire risk and increase
resilience to wildfires that occur. We are particularly focused on a
few climate initiatives across the industry, including:

Efficient implementation of the Great American Outdoors Act,
which offers unprecedented levels of Federal funding to create
new and protect existing outdoor recreation infrastructure with
benefits of both conservation and carbon sequestration

Invest in climate resilient recreation infrastructure and
natural ways to mitigate the impacts of climate change on
outdoor recreation businesses and the communities that rely on
them

Expansion of EV charging networks across public lands and
waters to reduce emissions from the transportation sector

Creation of a Civilian Climate Corps, which would put
America's youth and veterans to work on green infrastructure
projects that can increase climate resilience and expand
outdoor recreation access.

We hope the House Agriculture Committee in the 117th Congress will
see us as a key partner in identifying more opportunities to address
risks and opportunities posed by wildfire in the future.
Sincerely,
Sec.[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Jessica Turner,
Executive Director,
Outdoor Recreation Roundtable.
______

Submitted Map by Hon. Doug LaMalfa, a Representative in Congress from
California
Sec.[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

______

Submitted Questions
Response from Randy Moore, Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture
Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom O'Halleran, a Representative in
Congress from Arizona
Question 1. The Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) program is
designed to address damage to the land following intense wildfire. The
objective of the BAER program's goal is to determine the need for and
to prescribe and implement emergency treatments on Federal Lands to
minimize threats to life or property resulting from the effects of a
fire and to prevent unacceptable degradation to natural and cultural
resources. What is the backlog on BAER projects?? What other
Congressional actions are needed to improve the program?
Answer. The Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) program addresses
post-fire emergency conditions on National Forest System (NFS) lands.
There is not a backlog of BAER projects. All projects that meet the
intent and guidelines in BAER program direction are funded through
wildfire suppression appropriations. Due to the post-fire emergency
requirements of the program, BAER projects are accomplished within 1
year of fire containment. Longer-term rehabilitation and restoration
needs are separate post-fire recovery efforts that need to occur over a
longer time frame after the wildfire and are referred to as Burned Area
Rehabilitation (BAR) needs. BAR activity examples include reforestation
and revegetation, invasive species treatments, rangeland infrastructure
repairs, and watershed improvements.
Rehabilitation, as defined by the National Wildfire Coordinating
Group (NWCG), is the action undertaken within 3 years of a wildland
fire to repair or improve fire-damaged lands unlikely to recover to
management-approved conditions, or to repair or replace minor
facilities damaged by fire. The Forest Service had consistent Burned
Area Rehabilitation (BAR) funding from 2002-2011. While the BAR program
did not fully fund all post-fire rehabilitation needs during that time
frame, it did support the completion of a subset of the needed work.
With its end, the backlog of projects has expanded and has subsequently
been exacerbated by the increasing scale of fire impacts to NFS lands
and infrastructure. The current backlog of post-fire (post-BAER)
rehabilitation and restoration projects exceeds $2 billion, including 4
million acres in potential need of reforestation.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides $100 million to
the Forest Service for burned area rehabilitation activities that must
be implemented within 3 years of containment of a wildland fire.
Division J includes $45 million each of Fiscal Years 2022-2026 for
post-fire recovery as well. These funds are being focused on the repair
or improvement of lands unlikely to recover naturally to a management-
approved condition and to repair and replace minor infrastructure and
facilities damaged by the fire.
We are happy to work with the Congressman's office regarding ways
to improve the program.

Question 2. It is my understanding that the Wildland Fire
Management program provides sufficient funding to protect, treat, and
prevent forest fires on 20 million acres of forest service land. I also
believe that there are at least 66 million acres where treatment is
needed. What is the timetable to address the other 46 million acres?
What additional resources are necessary for this? Are staffing levels
sufficient to complete this work or are additional staffing needed? If
so, how much? Are additional authorities needed?
Answer. There are 63 million acres of National Forest System lands
at high or very high risk of wildfire that would be difficult to
contain. While funding through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act will allow us to pick up the pace and scale of our work, it will
not fully fund the work necessary to treat the 20 million acres that
pose the highest risk to communities. That said, we now have the
science and tools we need to size and place treatments in a way that
will truly make a difference. We will focus on key ``firesheds''--
large, forested landscapes with a high likelihood that an ignition
could expose homes, communities, infrastructure, and natural resources
to wildfire. Firesheds, typically about 250,000 acres in size, are
mapped to match the scale of building exposure to wildfire.
Under the 10 year Strategy to confront the wildfire crisis, we are
working with our partners to:

Treat an additional 20 million acres on National Forest
System lands.

Treat an additional 30 million acres of other Federal,
state, Tribal, and private lands.

Develop a plan for long-term maintenance beyond the 10
years.

Our new management paradigm builds on the National Cohesive
Wildland Fire Management Strategy.\1\ The nation already has
collaborative strategies in place for cross-boundary treatments,
including Cohesive Strategy projects and Shared Stewardship agreements.
We will work collaboratively through shared stewardship with states,
Tribes, local communities, private landowners, and other stakeholders
to adapt lessons learned into a coordinated and effective program of
work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/strategy/. [Attachment 1].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Forest Service has set up a Wildfire Risk Reduction
Infrastructure Team to build on new and existing capacity in carrying
out projects under the 10 year Strategy. Together with our partners, we
will plan project areas while building the needed workforce capacity
and public support. We will treat the highest priority firesheds first.
Then we will move on to other western firesheds, accelerating our
treatments over 10 years. Next steps will include building our
workforce capacity in the Forest Service and with our partners to
accomplish the work at the scale needed while establishing the large
multi-jurisdictional coalition needed to support the work.
The Agency recognizes that it will need to increase overall
staffing to successfully reduce the risk of wildfires. The
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides funds to help increase
capacity. The Agency is still developing comprehensive staffing plans
and will be increasing workforce capacity, not only in field personnel
to complete the work, but also key administrative positions like
contracting officers, grants and agreements specialists, partnership
coordinators, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
professionals who act as force multipliers. The Agency also recognizes
that achieving the desired pace and scale of land treatments will
require the support of states, Tribes, local communities, non-
government organizations, and private contractors.

Question 3. While I appreciate the decision to increase the level
of pay for temporary firefighters to $15 an hour, this is clearly
inadequate. These Federal firefighters sleep in tents away from their
families and risk their lives to protect communities, people, and
property from wildfire. How was the decision reached to pay these
individuals $15 an hour? Are discussions on going to increase that rate
of pay so it is commensurate with the intensity and difficulty of the
work? Do you anticipate that an increase in pay will result in better
retention of firefighters throughout the extended fire seasons?
Answer. The Forest Service is partnering with the Department of the
Interior, the Office of Personnel Management, and Executive of the
President to identify policy and administrative actions needed to
implement appropriate workforce management and compensation reforms.
In September 2021, the Forest Service provided retention incentives
to approximately 11,300 firefighters. This is in addition to a monetary
incentive for approximately 1,100 firefighters (permanent and
temporary) earning less than $15 per hour. These incentives provided
temporary relief through the end of the calendar year to cover the gap
for those earning less than $15 per hour.
On November 9, 2021, the Forest Service established a minimum pay
standard for all firefighters to make $15 per hour or more. The new pay
scale settings represent the absolute minimum pay these employees would
receive at grades GS-02, GS-03, and GS-04.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act authorizes the
development of a distinct ``wildland firefighter'' occupational series,
appropriates $480 million to convert seasonal wildland firefighters to
permanent full-time wildland firefighters, and increases the base
salary of Federal wildland firefighters in hard to fill areas by
$20,000 or 50%, whichever is less. These provisions are expected to
help improve recruitment and retention of wildland firefighters in the
Forest Service.

Question 4. In the last 20 years, the forest service has lost 38
percent of its workforce. This has resulted increased NEPA delays,
reduced forest management, and backlogs for projects to be completed.
What are the real numbers in non-fire staffing now versus 2000? How
much of this reduction in workforce has been due to the hiring of
additional temporary firefighters for more intense and longer fire
season? What other factors contribute to staffing declines?
Answer. The Forest Service has lost more than 40% of its non-fire
positions over the past 15 years. This significantly limits our ability
to meet the Administration's current priorities. Losses have been
especially great in lands and realty management resources (land line,
reality, cadastral services) in support of wildland fuels reduction,
forest restoration, and road infrastructure, as well as in recreation
resources (planning, engineering, patrol and service technicians,
grants and agreements, and contracting specialists) needed to support
the Great American Outdoors Act and portions of the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act that target trail and recreation
infrastructure. Other areas with noted reductions in staffing include
heritage, minerals and geology, special uses, land management planning,
and vegetation and wildlife management. Declines in non-fire staffing
reflect the increased proportion of the budget that has gone to
wildland fire.
Given updates to agency personnel systems and changes to the
definition of wildland firefighter and associated position
descriptions, the Forest Service is able to provide reliable personnel
data for the past 5 years.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Permanent Positions Onboard at the end of September
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Sep. FY16 Sep. FY17 Sep. FY18 Sep. FY19 Sep. FY20 Sep. FY21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 28,193 27,955 27,562 27,446 28,971 28,772
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire Permanent Positions Onboard at the end of September
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Sep. FY16 Sep. FY17 Sep. FY18 Sep. FY19 Sep. FY20 Sep. FY21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 6,985 7,214 7,411 7,558 8,581 8,453
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Fire Permanent Positions Onboard at the end of September
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Sep. FY16 Sep. FY17 Sep. FY18 Sep. FY19 Sep. FY20 Sep. FY21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 21,208 20,741 20,151 19,888 20,390 20,319
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Temporary Positions Onboard (Peak Timeframe--Pay Period 14)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Jul. FY16 Jul. FY17 Jul. FY18 Jul. FY19 Jul. FY20 Jul. FY21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 11,649 11,541 10,990 10,367 9,970 9,201
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire Temporary Positions Onboard (Peak Timeframe--Pay Period 14)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Jul. FY16 Jul. FY17 Jul. FY18 Jul. FY19 Jul. FY20 Jul. FY21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 5,235 5,163 4,968 4,756 4,584 4,163
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Fire Temporary Positions Onboard (Peak Timeframe--Pay Period 14)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Jul. FY16 Jul. FY17 Jul. FY18 Jul. FY19 Jul. FY20 Jul. FY21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 6,414 6,378 6,022 5,611 5,386 5,038
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As illustrated, there is a slight decrease in overall permanent
onboard strength from FY16-FY19; onboard strength begins to increase
again in FY20. The overall non-fire permanent workforce decreased in
FY17, FY18, and FY19, but began to increase in FY20. There has been a
steady increase of the overall fire permanent workforce year after
year, with a 21% increase in permanent fire numbers when comparing FY16
to FY21.
There are decreases in all temporary hiring numbers from FY16-FY21,
regardless of whether the position is fire or non-fire.

Question 5. There are significant issues related to lack of law
enforcement personnel in our national forests. Please share the
breakdown of law enforcement personnel assigned by the USFS for every
ranger district and every national forest along with the number of
square miles for every national forest and ranger district.
Answer. See Appendix A with requested information.

Question 6. The USFS often engages in agreements with local police
departments in communities where there is not sufficient law
enforcement to provide that service. In your mind, how successful have
these agreements been? What improvements are needed?
Answer. Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigations (LEI)
routinely engages in agreements with state, county, and local law
enforcement partners under the authority of the Cooperative Law
Enforcement Act. These agreements are generally for 5 years and often
include a fixed yearly funding level of reimbursement for services
rendered or equipment used/purchased related to services performed on
National Forest Systems (NFS) lands. The level of funding varies per
agreement and no existing agreements offer total reimbursement for all
services performed. In FY 2021, Forest Service LEI had 478 Cooperative
Law Enforcement (CLE) Agreements totaling $5.2 million.
These agreements are vital to management of NFS lands and our
state, county, and local cooperators are key partners in protecting the
resources and providing public safety. The agreements are most commonly
used for additional patrol services on NFS lands. Many agreements may
specify certain patrol activities or areas for reimbursement like a
busy campground, recreation area, or a specific area where FS law
enforcement coverage is lacking. Some agreements may just be general
patrol agreements or other services like dispatch services. Some
agreements are also used to purchase equipment such as off-road
vehicles for patrol or search and rescue on NFS lands.
The agreements are also often used as a vehicle for state, county,
and local partners to confer state authority on FS LEI staff. This
additional authority allows FS LEI staff to enforce state, county, and
local law in many areas the same as local law enforcement do. These
enforcement actions utilize the same state/local laws and courts as our
partners and help the FS LEI staff became a vital member of the local
law enforcement community. This authority commonly assists our partners
as well. In many cases, a FS LEI officer can take an enforcement action
to resolve an issue rather than requiring a local officer or deputy to
respond in an area (often remote) on NFS lands.
CLE funding levels have been flat and can impact adequate
reimbursement for services. This issue has been further stressed with a
decrease in Forest Service Law Enforcement staffing and the significant
increase in visitation on public lands, including during the COVID-19
Pandemic.

Question 7. Coconino National Forest currently is seeing
significant environmental degradation because of Off-Highway-Vehicle
usage. This is causing local trees and vegetation to suffer, increases
dust in the air, increases air pollution, and makes the forest more
dangerous for other users. What additional resources are needed by the
forest service to prevent people from engaging in dangerous OHV usage
and to limit the environmental degradation? What solutions exist to
protect the forest's health and prevent the ongoing significant
environmental degradation we have seen? I have attached photos and
links to videos to show the level of destruction caused by OHVs in the
area.
Photos: Red Rock Ranger District National Forest
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Links to Showing Environmental Degradation from OHVs: *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Editor's note: the videos are retained in Committee file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 OHV rollovers in 3 days
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0jdRNnvoWg
Oct. 2, 2021, OHV rollover, doughnuts, reckless driving, dust, abuse,
etc.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzMvBwMKFYE
OHVs are so out of control, there were two major rollovers with four
people going to the hospital
Sec.[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2_86zaF5b04&t=21s
Sept. 26 29, 2021, mud doughnuts and comments from jeep tour driver
Sec.[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8zBL40Gq-Y
Sept. 25, 2021, OHV rollover, reckless driving, speeds, environmental
damage
Sec.[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVQXhZyaknk&t=35s
Sept 24, 2021, OHV abuse, speeds, reckless driving, environmental
damage
Sec.[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo8ctgep_q0&t=71s

Answer. Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) recreation opportunities on the
Red Rock Ranger District (District) are relatively concentrated and
visitors often travel a limited road network to access the same
destinations. While there is some road/trail widening and use of
unauthorized routes, most OHV use in the area is legal and does not
create resource damage. The Coconino Forest (Forest) does not currently
have any limitation on the number of OHVs that can operate, except in
the Soldiers Pass area, and does not have posted speed limits on
National Forest System Roads. A 2018 Engineering Road Use Study
conducted found that 85% of motor vehicles traveled under 30 MPH,
including OHVs. Results of this study found that drivers are properly
regulating their speeds for the conditions (partially due to the road
condition and dust), and a speed limit is not currently warranted.
The District operates a large, motorized recreation special use
permit program comprised largely of guided jeep tours. Additionally,
over the last 5 years the number of OHV rental businesses (OHV and
jeeps) has increased in the cities of Sedona, Cottonwood, and
Cornville; similar to car rentals, these businesses are not required to
hold a recreation special use permit, thus allowing private individuals
to operate their equipment on the Forest. Arizona State law prohibits
the Forest from prohibiting street-legal OHVs on open roads.
National Forest System Roads (NFSR) 525 and 152c connect a series
of four designated OHV routes (29.5 miles). The OHV routes are utilized
by Jeep and ATV guiding permittees and are very popular with the public
renting OHVs in Sedona and Cottonwood. NFSR 525 and NFSR 152c are the
primary access for visitors of this national and international tourist
destination.
Two Forest Service Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) and
approximately six field-going Forest Protection Officers (FPOs),
provide education and enforcement duties on the Coconino National
Forest. Existing cooperative partnerships with local, County (Coconino
and Yavapai County Sheriff's Offices), and state agencies (Arizona
Department of Game and Fish), provide additional enforcement during
peak visitation periods, including saturation enforcement and citations
for violations of state law. The State of Arizona regulates use of
motor vehicles and OHVs on open roads, including NFSRs. While most
visitor accidents and injuries that occur in the area are heat related
illnesses, the Forest Service is working with cooperators to address
visitor accidents and injuries.
Collaborative Efforts:

The District served on a working group convened by Yavapai
County Supervisor Michaels related to dispersed camping and OHV
use west of Sedona, attending eight meetings to date. The
Forest Service intends to replicate a similar facilitated OHV
working group in 2022 to continue addressing concerns in the
Sedona area.

The District initiated monthly cooperator meetings with
local law enforcement and emergency responders to enhance
relationships, share information, and accurately track safety
incidents.

The Forest participates on the Diablo Trust Recreation
Working Group, a collaborative group that addresses recreation
issues (including OHV use), to find balanced solutions for all
stakeholders.

In June 2021, the Coconino Forest Supervisor issued a letter
to OHV rental businesses in Sedona and Cottonwood inviting the
companies to engage with forest officials to address user
conflicts and prevent resource damage. As a result, the Sedona
Chamber of Commerce announced the formation of the Red Rock OHV
Conservation Crew (RROCC), a coalition of more than a dozen
private OHV industry partners. In partnership with
TreadLightly!, the RROCC is addressing effects from increased
OHV visitation.

In September 2021, RROCC companies began dedicating 1% of
sales to land preservation and rider education, a commitment
that could achieve $350,000 in annual contributions to be used
as matching funds in the 2022 Arizona State OHV grant program.
Funds will be used for education and patrol rangers, road/trail
maintenance, restoration projects and public engagement.

The Forest responded to a November 1, 2021, letter from the
City of Sedona requesting limited OHV entry points on to the
forest.

The district will seek funding for projects through the Arizona
State OHV Grant program, a competitive process for funding
opportunities specific to motorized recreation. Road engineers have
conducted a Road Use Study for forest road 152c and a section of 525
(with finalization expected in early 2022). Results of the study will
enhance management and maintenance efforts. The Forest Service is also
considering other non-engineering actions to improve conditions and
visitor experience, such as improved portal entrance and various
educational signs along 152C. The District is developing a
comprehensive signing plan that will be educational and enforceable to
keep visitors on designated routes.
With RROCC assistance, a multi-year program of work will be
developed and transparent to local stakeholders, identifying outcomes
and funding streams. Financial assistance through the RROCC 1% program
is anticipated.

Question 8. What is the timeline for the update of each of the
forest management plans in Arizona's first Congressional district?
Answer. Each of the Forest Land Management Plan revisions in
Arizona Congressional District One occurred recently:

Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan, revised in
2014.

Prescott National Forest Land Management Plan, revised in
2015.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Land Management Plan, revised in
2015.

Coconino National Forest Land Management Plan, revised in
2018.

Tonto National Forest Land Management Plan, final decision
on revised plan expected in Fiscal Year 2022.

In general, we plan to update our forest plans every 15 years, but
often the timeline is longer due to resource availability.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Kim Schrier, a Representative in Congress
from Washington
Question 1. Can you address the issue of staffing and capacity at
the Forest Service to accomplish large-scale forest treatments? I hear
from folks in my district that hiring limitations and salary
constraints within the agency are a major problem and are stalling
desperately needed work.
Answer. We recognize the need to increase overall staffing to
successfully reduce the risk of wildfires. The Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act provides funds to help increase capacity. The
Agency is still developing comprehensive staffing plans and will be
increasing capacity in not only field personnel to complete the work,
but also key administrative positions like contracting officers, grants
and agreements specialists, partnership coordinators, and NEPA
professionals who act as force multipliers. The Agency also recognizes
that achieving the desired pace and scale of land treatments will
require the support of states, Tribes, local, non-government
organizations, and private contractors.

Question 2. Since we know the scale of wildfire and forest health
risks is too massive for the Forest Service to take on alone, and we
need an all-hands-on-deck mentality, what are your plans to provide
more local authority, funding and flexibility to allow ranger districts
to more effectively utilize local partners to help with planning and
implementation?
Answer. We are taking a cross Deputy area approach to ensure we are
developing maximum flexibilities while abiding by all regulations,
policy and laws. We continue to look for and implement efficiencies in
our execution of agreements. An example would be the development of
master agreements with our national level partners. This allows local
units to develop supplemental agreements much quicker. Also, we are
aggressively working with our national level partners to gain
efficiencies in our program execution.
The Forest Service is committed to using all the authorities we
have at our disposal, such as stewardship contracts and agreements, and
Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) agreements. We have a long history of
consistently working with partners at all levels of the Agency. Most
Ranger Districts engage partners where available to help with planning
and implementation of a variety of Forest Service activities. No
significant additional local authority or flexibility is needed. The
main barriers to more Ranger Districts effectively utilizing partners
for planning and implementation are staffing shortages, rapid employee
turnover, and shifts in program of work as forests must respond to
wildfires and other competing priorities.
Additionally, by using funding and authorities under the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to increase our staffing in
contracting, grants and agreements, and other key areas, the Forest
Service will be able to more effectively work with partners to reduce
fuels under our 10 year Strategy to combat the wildfire crisis in this
country.

Question 3. There's one particular landscape restoration project of
great importance in my district: The Upper Wenatchee Pilot Project. I
don't expect you to have these answers today, but I will be following
up with your team to learn more about the status of that project, to
learn (1) when an Environmental Assessment will be available for the
public to review, (2) when we can expect the final NEPA decision, and
(3) when we will see work starting on the ground. While this project
remains stalled, land within its treatment area is burning in a
wildfire as we speak.
Answer. The Okanogan Wenatchee National Forest has mostly completed
the environmental assessment (EA) for the Upper Wenatchee Pilot
Project, and we are working through the regulatory consultation
processes that are required before we issue a decision. Fortunately,
this planning effort was not impacted by fires this year. Our current
schedule is to release the Final EA and Draft Decision Notice for
public review in spring of 2022. A final decision is anticipated late
fall of 2022, and after that we could initiate implementation.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Doug LaMalfa, a Representative in Congress
from California
Question 1. As the wildfire season lengthens throughout the west
and fires become larger and more frequent, how does the USFS plan to
limit Unable to Fill (UTF) rates related to requests for aerial
firefighting support?
Answer. To meet wildfire support needs in 2021, the Forest Service
contracted for 23 airtankers. The States of California, Colorado, and
Oregon contracted for five airtankers total for their own use. Though
committed to those states, these airtankers provided additional
airtanker support, reducing the need in some cases to send Forest
Service contracted airtankers to those states. The Forest Service also
used all eight National Guard and Air Force Reserve Modular Airborne
Firefighting System C-130s for a substantial part of the summer fire
season. Through our international agreement with Australia, the Agency
also ordered and received an Australian airtanker that remained
operational in the United States for nearly 60 days, contributing
significantly to the interagency airtanker response and capability.
Unable to fill orders occur for many reasons. Airtanker and Type 1
and Type 2 helicopters are national assets intended to be mobile to
meet needs as they arise around the country. As the fire year
intensifies, so does the demand for aviation assets. During high fire
occurrence or predicted fire weather, these resources are frequently
prepositioned to areas of highest concern to provide for rapid initial
attack response. At National Preparedness Levels 4 and 5 (https://
www.nifc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/
National_Preparedness_Levels.pdf [Attachment 2]), the National Multi-
Agency Coordination group prioritizes fire needs and airtanker
deployments accordingly to ensure maximized fleet use in the most
critical areas in the country. As fire priorities change throughout the
day, aircraft usage is reassessed, and aircraft continue to be
reassigned as they accomplish their designated missions. All incidents
must submit their incident management needs nightly and are subject to
this prioritization process. During simultaneous wildfire events, the
result may end in unable-to-fill orders until higher priorities are
met.

Question 2. As the Forest Service looks for additional resources to
fight wildfires, has the Forest Service considered Containerized Aerial
Firefighting Systems (CAFFS) technology?
Answer. Testing, evaluation, and approval of retardant delivery
systems are conducted under the authority of the National Interagency
Aviation Committee in accordance with methods and standards established
by the Interagency Airtanker Board. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Forest Service does not perform testing at the request of
companies unless a member agency, Federal or state, identifies an
operational need through the National Interagency Aviation Committee.
In recent years the Forest Service has been approached by a number
of companies with Containerized Aerial Firefighting Systems (CAFFS)
technology proposals. The Agency has completed an assessment of our
retardant delivery requirements in conjunction with current industry
science, technology, and best practices. At this time, our current
capabilities align very well with our requirements and modernization
strategy, and we are not seeking any additional capabilities, including
containerized delivery systems.
While this system received a favorable evaluation by the Air
National Guard, the Air National Guard Air Force Reserve Command Test
Center only evaluated the suitability of the Container Aerial Fire
Fighting System according to standard containerized delivery systems
rigging, loading, and release guidance and procedures. There was no
evaluation of the system's firefighting effectiveness. Their evaluation
stated that ``using containerized delivery systems as a method of
firefighting presents a number of safety concerns that would need to be
addressed prior to operations.'' One notable concern is ``there is no
method to emergency jettison the bulk of the weight when it is in
containerized delivery systems format. Unlike the emergency jettison of
the modular airborne firefighting system, containerized delivery
systems are reliant on the load to gravity extract from the aircraft,
which can take significant time.''

Question 3. How does the Forest Service decide between ``best
value'' and ``Lowest Price Technically Acceptable'' contracting with
regards to aerial firefighting assets?
Answer. Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) is a competitive
negotiation source selection process where the non-price factors of a
proposal are evaluated to determine which proposals are `technically
acceptable' and award is made to the offeror of the technically
acceptable proposal with the lowest price. FAR 15.101-2(a) states that
this process is appropriate when Best Value is expected to result from
the use of this process. Thus, the `best value' decision is made in
planning the procurement, not in evaluating the proposals (as in the
Tradeoff Process). In the lowest price technically acceptable process,
the non-price factors are all evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable
basis with no gradations or scores for higher levels of achievement.
Thus, no tradeoffs are made in the source selection decision.

Question 3a. What safety concerns does the Forest Service evaluate
before deciding to go with LPTA contracts for aerial assets?
Answer. The safety factors evaluated in the solicitation include
not only Aviation Safety Management System implementation and
effectiveness in the contractor's company, but improved aircraft
performance margins defined in the categories, additional radios for
improved communication with other aerial resources and ground
resources, flight data monitoring systems to provide aircraft
preventative and post mishap aircraft data, air traffic advisory
systems to help deconflict the airspace, and many other aircraft,
company and personnel safety enhancements. Promotion of appropriate
oversight and maintenance by the contractor and the Forest Service is
required resulting in a higher level of safety. All vendors must meet
the safety and technical standards to receive a contract award. They
then can compete for task orders to fill fire helicopter orders.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in
Congress from Pennsylvania
Question 1. Does the Forest Service have specific recommendations
for what Congress can do to help the agency perform more landscape-
scale management projects?
Answer. The Agency recognizes that we will need to increase overall
staffing to successfully reduce the risk of wildfires. The
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides funds to help increase
capacity. The Agency is still developing comprehensive staffing plans
and will be increasing capacity in not only field personnel to complete
the work, but also key administrative positions like contracting
officers, grants and agreements specialists, partnership coordinators,
and NEPA professionals who act as force multipliers. The Agency also
recognizes that achieving the desired pace and scale of land treatments
will require the support of states, Tribes, local, non-government
organizations, and private contractors.
The Agency is grateful for the authorities provided in the 2018
Omnibus and subsequent legislation such as increasing the ability to
use Good Neighbor Authority to increase the pace and scale of our work.
The Agency greatly appreciates the support provided through the IIJA
and the numerous pieces of legislation that have been introduced.

Question 1a. What are the barriers that hinder the Forest Service
from undertaking new partnerships and larger-scale restoration?
Answer. The Forest Service has lost more than 40% of its non-fire
positions over the past 15 years. This significantly limits our ability
to meet the Administration's current priorities. Losses have been
especially great in lands and realty management resources (land line,
reality, cadastral services) in support of wildland fuels reduction,
forest restoration, and road infrastructure, as well as in recreation
resources (planning, engineering, patrol and service technicians,
grants and agreements, and contracting specialists) needed to support
the Great American Outdoors Act and portions of the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act that target trail and recreation
infrastructure. Capacity to carry out administration and oversight of
agreements is the largest barrier. Partner capacity and expertise in
hazardous fuels reduction work is also a common barrier.
The Forest Service greatly appreciates the funding provided through
the IIJA to conduct much needed restoration and fuels reduction work.
These investments will help the agency increase the pace and scale of
our work with partners to carry out these projects.

Question 2. In response to the fatally flawed 2015 Cottonwood
decision, the Obama Administration filed a petition of certiorari that
stated this new precedent had the potential to ``cripple forest
management.'' And that has certainly been the case, as whole forests
have been shut down and hundreds of projects implicated as a result. In
some instances, project areas have burned in wildfire while being
delayed in the courts over this very issue. Furthermore, limited Agency
resources are diverted to this procedural requirement and responding to
frivolous lawsuits instead of getting more work done on the ground.
Chief Moore, how has the Cottonwood decision made western
communities more vulnerable to wildfires?
The past four Chiefs of the Forest Service testified in support of
finding a solution to reversing this decision. Do you support fixing
this issue once and for all?
Answer. The Ninth Circuit's decision in Cottonwood Environmental
Law Center v. United States Forest Service, 789 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir.
2015), in which the court found the Forest Service retains
discretionary involvement or control over a forest plan after its
approval.
The Cottonwood Decision remains a source of litigation and
continues to be an issue of concern for the Agency We are committed to
finding a collaborative, science-based approach to conserving wildlife
and managing our public lands and forests, and we will continue to work
with the Department of the Interior towards a solution.

Question 3. It appears to me that much of the funding provided by
the agriculture portion of the pending reconciliation package will
never get on the ground to do the management activities necessary
because the bill, as drafted, text contains many restrictions and
limitations, and emphasizes noncommercial projects.
Does the Forest Service have concerns with the restrictions on
commercial projects, as well as the lack of emphasis on thinning and
landscape scale restoration?
Does the Forest Service have any comment on which provisions may
trigger guidance orrulemaking?
If so, how long would such rulemaking and processes take before
projects could begin?
Answer. The Forest Service stands ready to fully implement the
forestry title of the reconciliation bill if enacted. We have not
conducted an assessment of which provisions will involve rulemaking at
this point.

Question 4. The Forest Service has a long practice of assigning
annual timber sale volume targets to individual forests based on the
funding they are allocated by the Washington Office. These volume
targets are critical to the agency's partners in the forest products
industry, which must plan on how to secure needed raw materials and
consider potential business investments or changes in operations. The
targets also help encourage accountability and incentivize efficiency
in unit costs with funds allocated by the Washington office.
Some regions and forests are signaling a shift away from specific
timber sale targets.
Will the Forest Service continue to assign annual timber sale
targets at the national, regional, and forest level?
Answer. The Forest Service is adjusting their approach to the
setting of timber targets this year. We are looking at what the Forests
can produce instead of setting targets based on past performance. This
is particularly necessary in the western U.S. where there have been
significant changes in the amount of timber available for harvest and
the condition of the timber that has been previously sold. We will
still maintain a national target of 3.4 billion board feet and will
work to set the goals for each Forest based on the proposed budget and
other factors. In addition, the units recognize the importance of
maintaining the viability of critical timber infrastructure and intend
to offer volume at levels to sustain it.

Question 5. Following a wildfire, hazard trees along Forest Service
roads pose a significant threat to restoration and reforestation
efforts, as well as access for emergency response, wildfiresuppression,
commercial or administrative purposes, and the public.
What guidance is the agency providing to its regions and forests on
a consistent, uniform approach for addressing roadside hazard trees
following a catastrophic event to get agency roads safely reopened as
soon as possible?
Answer. Forest Service policy speaks to hazard identification (all
hazards) and correction including danger tree Hazards in FSH 7709.59
chapter 40. The policy directs qualified staff to mitigate high risk
areas as soon as practicable.

Question 6. Does your current roadside salvage CE provide the
Forest Service with the ability to adequately address roadside hazards?
It's my understanding that a court case in the Northwest has limited
the use of this CE to one tree length on either side of the road.
Does that provide adequate clearance for safe access?
Answer. The Forest Service does not have a categorical exclusion
(CE) specifically for the purpose of salvage harvest along roadsides.
The Agency does have a general salvage CE though it is limited to no
more than 250 acres. Historically, we have used our road maintenance
CE, 36 CFR 220.6(d)(4) to remove hazard trees along roads. A recent
ruling in the 9th Circuit (EPIC v. Carlson) limited the application of
this category for trees greater than one tree length from the road
edge. Subsequent rulings have limited use of this category for hazard
tree removal activities over a large spatial area. The Agency has
reduced use of this CE and its activities in response to the court
rulings, including scaling back the degree to which units propose
treatment, considering other environmental analysis processes, and
closing roads until any identified hazards are mitigated. The recently
enacted Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act does provide a statutory
CE for the creation of fuel breaks along constructed linear features
such as roads. Within certain conditions, this CE could have some
applicability in post-fire salvage where there is sufficient fuel
remaining to warrant a fuel break.

Question 7. President Biden issued an Executive Order on September
9 requiring COVID-19 vaccinations for all Federal contractors,
including subcontractors and small businesses. Based on guidance issued
by a Federal task force and approved by OMB on September 24, the
vaccine mandate will take effect on December 8.
What potential impact could this mandate have on the Forest Service
workforce and the Forest Service's ability to implement critical forest
health treatments, fire suppression, and replanting activities on
Federal lands through the many small, family-owned contractors that
provide these services in very rural areas of the country?
Answer. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Georgia has temporarily halted the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for Federal
contractors nationwide.

Question 8. The Forest Service recently indicated that it must
increase forest management and restoration 2-4 times over current
treatment levels if it hopes to get ahead of the forest health and
wildfire crisis.
What additional staffing numbers will be required for the Forest
Service to increase treatment levels by 2-4 times, assuming that
current analysis requirements remain unchanged?
What other authorities or contracting mechanisms are available for
the Forest Service to perform these functions within current staffing
levels?
Answer. The Agency recognizes that we will need to increase overall
staffing to successfully reduce the risk of wildfires. The
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides funds to help increase
capacity. The Agency is still developing comprehensive staffing plans
and will be increasing capacity in not only field personnel to complete
the work but also key administrative positions like contracting
officers, grants and agreements specialists, partnership coordinators,
and NEPA professionals who act as force multipliers.
The goal to increase treatment levels by 2-4 times will require 20%
to 30% additional staffing in key areas, in particular at the key GS-12
and GS-13 grade levels (senior contracting officers with the knowledge
and experience to form and administer competent contracts beyond the
simplified acquisition threshold). It is highly likely that the
increases in treatments will require larger, landscape scale contracts
and agreements, in particular construction, architecture/engineering
and stewardship timber contracts. These areas require specific
expertise.
The agency also recognizes that achieving the desired pace and
scale of land treatments will require the support of states, Tribes,
local, non-government organizations, and private contractors. The
Forest Service utilizes a multitude of grant and agreement authorities
to engage with Federal, state and local governments as well as Tribal,
nonprofit and private entities to carry out forest management projects.
The Agency also uses the authorities like the Good Neighbor Authority
to increase the pace and scale of our work.

Question 9. Hazardous fuels reduction has two main components:
prescribed fire and silvicultural treatments, such as ``thinning.''
Both activities have a beneficial impact on mitigating wildfire
emissions by reducing combustible material in our forests and
wildlands. Following a harvest treatment, prescribed fire can be an
important tool to maintaining the investment of a more healthy and
resilient forest and minimizing the risk of catastrophic wildfire.
What is your vision to increase the pace and scale of these
critical hazardous fuel reduction practices to help reduce the wildfire
threat on National Forest lands?
Answer. The Agency recognizes that we will need to increase overall
staffing to successfully reduce the risk of wildfires. The
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides funds to help increase
capacity. The Agency is still developing comprehensive staffing plans
and will be increasing capacity in not only field personnel to complete
the work but also key administrative positions like contracting
officers, grants and agreements specialists, partnership coordinators,
and NEPA professionals who act as force multipliers. The agency also
recognizes that achieving the desired pace and scale of land treatments
will require the support of states, Tribes, local, non-government
organizations, and private contractors.
We now have the science and tools we need to size and place
treatments in a way that will truly make a difference. We will focus on
key ``firesheds''--large, forested landscapes with a high likelihood
that an ignition could expose homes, communities, infrastructure, and
natural resources to wildfire. Firesheds, typically about 250,000 acres
in size, are mapped to match the scale of building exposure to
wildfire.
Under the 10 year Strategy, we will work with partners to:

Treat an additional 20 million acres on National Forest
System lands.

Treat an additional 30 million acres of other Federal,
state, Tribal, and private lands.

Develop a plan for long-term maintenance beyond the 10
years.

Our new management paradigm builds on the National Cohesive
Wildland Fire Management Strategy. The nation already has collaborative
strategies in place for cross-boundary treatments, including Cohesive
Strategy projects and Shared Stewardship agreements. We will work
collaboratively through shared stewardship with states, Tribes, local
communities, private landowners, and other stakeholders to adapt
lessons learned into a coordinated and effective program of work.
The Forest Service has set up a Wildfire Risk Reduction
Infrastructure Team to build on new and existing capacity in carrying
out projects under the 10 year strategy. Together with our partners, we
will plan project areas while building the needed workforce capacity
and public support. We will treat the highest priority firesheds first.
Then we will move on to other western firesheds, accelerating our
treatments over 10 years.
Forest Service research and risk-based modeling has identified
hundreds of communities at high risk that can inform where and how to
place treatments that will truly make a difference. We will provide a
focused investment to these high priority areas to reduce wildfire
risk. This will require treating about 20-40% of these landscapes with
a combination of mechanical treatments and prescribed fire. We know
that treatments need to be done across jurisdictions to be effective,
and there are collaborative frameworks in place to enable cross-
boundary treatments, including Cohesive Strategy projects, Joint Chiefs
Restoration Partnership projects, Good Neighbor Authority agreements,
and Shared Stewardship agreements.

Question 10. The scale of wildfires and their community impacts far
outpace current efforts to prevent them and mitigate the damage they
cause. Substantial increases in active forest management and fuel
treatments along with community planning and resiliency efforts across
all landscapes, ownership boundaries and communities are needed in the
areas at greatest risk for unwanted wildfire.
What do you see as your number one goal within the USFS to reduce
this growing threat of wildfire to our communities and our landscapes?
Answer. To address the highest risk acres at the scale needed, we
need to work collaboratively with states, Tribes, local communities,
private landowners, and other stakeholders to strategically treat 20
million acres on priority National Forest System lands and 30 million
acres of other priority Federal, state, Tribal, and private lands, in
the west, over and above our current level of treatments.

Question 11. As you know, the 2015 Cottonwood decision has had
negative impacts on the USFS management activities. Since January 2016,
it has been reported that close to 30 lawsuits and 50 notices of intent
(NOIs) to sue the Forest Service involving ESA new information claims
have been initiated, challenging both plan-level and project-level
decisions.
Can you provide us with an updated and accurate accounting of these
lawsuits and related management impacts? More specifically, since the
2105 Cottonwood decision to current date, how many lawsuits have been
filed against the Forest Service involving ESA new information claims?
How many notices of intent (NOIs) to sue the Forest Service
involving ESA new information claims have occurred since the decision?
Answer. Since January 2016, there have been at least 27 lawsuits,
in twelve states, and 49 NOIs to sue involving ESA new information
claims, challenging both programmatic-level and project-level
decisions. Of the 49 NOIs received with new information claims, 26 are
project specific, 11 challenge programmatic decisions, and 12 have both
project specific and programmatic-level claims.

Three programmatic actions were enjoined or vacated due to
litigation associated with NOIs with new information claims.

Two project specific actions were enjoined due to litigation
associated with NOIs with new information claims.

Question 11a. Who are the Plaintiffs for each of these lawsuits?
Who are the claimants for each of these NOIs?
What is the status of each of the lawsuits?
Categorized by USFS Region and type of activity, how many USFS
projects are enjoined or under threat of being enjoined due to the
lawsuits?
Answer. Claimants and plaintiffs are primarily local or national
environmental advocacy non-governmental organizations. These cases are
in various stages within the judicial process. Claimants have issued
Notices of Intent (NOI) and plaintiffs have filed lawsuits against the
Forest Service in all regions accept the Southern Region and the Alaska
Region. At this time five agency actions have been enjoined by court
order.

Question 11b. Categorized by USFS Region, what is the scope of USFS
lands (in acreage) impacted by the lawsuits?
What percentage of these acres impacted or enjoined are categorized
as a part of the 63 million acres of USFS lands designated as high or
very high hazard for wildfire?
Answer. Our electronic data systems do not currently track acres
affected by the various stages of litigation.

Question 12. As you know, our Committee recently marked up a
reconciliation measure that included many policy changes impacting the
agency and some $40 billion in forest-related investments.
As the Chief of the Forest Service, were you asked to provide input
on this legislation? If so, did that request come from this Committee
or the Senate Agriculture Committee?
If you weren't consulted or weren't officially in your position as
Chief at the time, was anyone at the Agency been asked to provide
testimony or technical assistance on the bill? If so, can you provide
to us that testimony?
Answer. USDA provided testimony before the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee on June 24, 2021. A copy of the testimony
can be found at: www.energy.senate.gov. [See Attachment 3]. Technical
assistance requests from Congressional Members and committees are
treated as confidential by the agency.
Question Submitted by Hon. Dusty Johnson, a Representative in Congress
from South Dakota
Question. To what extent can the Four Forest Restoration Initiative
be expanded into the Black Hills National Forest?
Answer. The Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) is a
landscape-level effort to restore 2.4 million acres of Ponderosa pine
forests on the Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, and Tonto National
Forests in Northern Arizona. The Initiative has been active for the
last 10 years, and the agency plans to continue addressing restoration
needs over the next twenty years. The current 4FRI restoration approach
is working to address the most critical restoration needs, support
existing forest industry, and attract new industry across the landscape
through a variety of partnerships and investment strategies.
Some applicable lessons learned from the 4FRI that could apply to
other regions and National Forests such as the Black Hills include
developing a diverse and collaborative group of stakeholders to
identify and use best available science, mitigate potential litigation,
and leverage local, national and private resources. The use of the
authorities such as stewardship contracting, Good Neighbor Authority
(GNA), and 638 contracts with Tribes allow for the development of
projects beyond traditional timber sales. These authorities allow for
flexibility to use appropriated funds, ability to cover the costs of
harvesting through service work, and the ability to use our external
partners to assist in developing and implementing projects.
appendix a

USDA Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigations Field Staff by
Region, Forest, District with Acres and Square Miles
As of November 1, 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total LEI Sworn Field Staffing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region LEO's Captain Special Total
Agent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 29 4 5 38
2 26 4 3 33
3 29 5 5 39
4 29 5 4 38
5 66 16 17 99
6 51 7 6 64
8 71 10 12 93
9 41 5 7 53
10 13 2 1 16
---------------------------------------------------------
Total....... 355 58 60 473
------------------------------------------------------------------------

USDA Forest Service Region 1
LEI Field Staffing and Forest/District Size
November 1, 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Forest District Acres Sq. Miles LEO CPT SA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beaverhead-Deerlodge Supervisors Office--North East Zone
National Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beaverhead-Deerlodge Butte Ranger District 675,794.092 1,055.928159 1
National Forest
Beaverhead-Deerlodge Pintler Ranger District 731,233.201 1,142.551757
National Forest
Beaverhead-Deerlodge Madison Ranger District 751,356.604 1,173.994572 1
National Forest
Beaverhead-Deerlodge Dillon Ranger District 579,820.221 905.9690015 1
National Forest
Beaverhead-Deerlodge Wisdom Ranger District 875,879.975 1,368.562318
National Forest
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 3614,084 5,647
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bitterroot National Supervisors Office--South Central Zone
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bitterroot National Sula Ranger District 248,532.299 388.3316769
Forest
Bitterroot National Stevensville Ranger 251,432.345 392.8629975 1
Forest District
Bitterroot National West Fork Ranger 793,460.223 1,239.781469
Forest District
Bitterroot National Darby Ranger District 371,027.402 579.7302552 1
Forest
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,664,452 2,600
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Custer Gallatin National Supervisors Office--South East Zone 1 1
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Custer Gallatin National Sioux Ranger District 176,981.829 276.5340793
Forest
Custer Gallatin National Ashland Ranger District 501,821.078 784.0953521
Forest
Custer Gallatin National Bozeman Ranger District 560,154.972 875.242053 1
Forest
Custer Gallatin National Gardiner Ranger District 419,554.913 655.5544828 1
Forest
Custer Gallatin National Hebgen Lake Ranger 355,699.128 555.7798296 1
Forest District
Custer Gallatin National Yellowstone Ranger 794,292.372 1,241.081702 1
Forest District
Custer Gallatin National Beartooth Ranger 603,732.391 943.3317622 1
Forest District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total ........................ 3,412,236 5,331
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dakota Prairie National Supervisors Office--South East Zone
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dakota Prairie Medora Ranger District 1,237,515.937 1,933.618449 1
Grasslands
Dakota Prairie Mckenzie Ranger District 846,089.526 1,322.014747
Grasslands
Dakota Prairie Sheyenne Ranger District 136,912.863 213.9263263
Grasslands
Dakota Prairie Grand River Ranger 448,306.602 700.4789925
Grasslands District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total ........................ 2,668,824 4170
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flathead National Forest Supervisors Office--North Central Zone 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flathead National Forest Hungry Horse Ranger 453,086.81 707.9480663 1
District
Flathead National Forest Spotted Bear Ranger 1,037,183.432 1,620.598943
District
Flathead National Forest Tally Lake Ranger 299,450.614 467.8915362 1
District
Flathead National Forest Glacier View Ranger 343,791.395 537.1739991
District
Flathead National Forest Swan Lake Ranger 518,181.093 809.6578729 1
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,651,693 4,143
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helena-Lewis and Clark Supervisors Office--North East Zone 1 1
National Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Helena-Lewis and Clark Belt Creek-White Sulphur 654,431.118 1,022.548515
National Forest Springs Ranger District
Helena-Lewis and Clark Judith-Musselshell 564,105.723 881.4151006 1
National Forest Ranger District
Helena-Lewis and Clark Rocky Mountain Ranger 783,923.209 1,224.879886 1
National Forest District
Helena-Lewis and Clark Helena Ranger District 454,532.926 710.2076221 1
National Forest
Helena-Lewis and Clark Townsend Ranger District 372,748.424 582.4193521 1
National Forest
Helena-Lewis and Clark Lincoln Ranger District 347,958.058 543.6844088
National Forest
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 3,177,699 4,965
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho Panhandle National Supervisors Office--West Zone 1 1
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho Panhandle National St. Joe Ranger District 870,590.026 1,360.296774
Forests
Idaho Panhandle National Priest Lake Ranger 382,556.158 597.7439349
Forests District
Idaho Panhandle National Sandpoint Ranger 393,661.546 615.0961017 1
Forests District
Idaho Panhandle Bonners Ferry Ranger 488,801.073 763.7515963 1
District
Idaho Panhandle National Coeur d'Alene River 807,892.136 1,262.331331 1
Forests Ranger District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,943,500 4,599
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kootenai National Forest Supervisors Office--North Central Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kootenai National Forest Three Rivers Ranger 663,494.042 1,036.709333
District
Kootenai National Forest Fortine Ranger District 281,616.217 440.0252929 1
Kootenai National Forest Libby Ranger District 877,077.248 1,370.433057 1
Kootenai National Forest Rexford Ranger District 331,384.722 517.7885737
Kootenai National Forest Cabinet Ranger District 468,542.274 732.0972266
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,622,114 4,097
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lolo National Forest Supervisors Office--South Central Zone 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lolo National Forest Missoula Ranger District 622,593.238 972.8018332 1
Lolo National Forest Seeley Lake Ranger 438,907.581 685.7930238 1
District
Lolo National Forest Superior Ranger District 517,194.741 808.1166988
Lolo National Forest Plains/Thompson Falls 575,201.183 898.751755
Ranger District
Lolo National Forest Ninemile Ranger District 471,618.152 736.903286
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 262,5514 4,102
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nez Perce-Clearwater Supervisors Office--West Zone 1
National Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nez Perce-Clearwater Palouse Ranger District 206,306.137 322.3533062 1
National Forest
Nez Perce-Clearwater North Fork Ranger 777,996.793 1,215.619862
National Forest District
Nez Perce-Clearwater Red River Ranger 781,579.117 1,221.217242
National Forest District
Nez Perce-Clearwater Moose Creek Ranger 822,617.024 1,285.338966
National Forest District
Nez Perce-Clearwater Salmon River Ranger 532,828.401 832.5442901 1
National Forest District
Nez Perce-Clearwater Lochsa/Powell Ranger 951,467.68 1,486.668095 1
National Forest District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 4,072,795 6,363
=============================================================
Total for Region 29,452,916 46,020 29 5 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

USDA Forest Service Region 2
LEI Field Staffing and Forest/District Size
November 1, 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Forest District Acres Sq. Miles LEO CPT SA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arapaho and Roosevelt Supervisors Office--Central Zone
National Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arapaho and Roosevelt Boulder Ranger District 246,023.064 384.4109967 1
National Forests
Arapaho and Roosevelt Clear Creek Ranger 203,540.046 318.031288 1
National Forests District
Arapaho and Roosevelt Canyon Lakes Ranger 839,116.047 1,311.118687 1
National Forests District
Arapaho and Roosevelt Sulphur Ranger District 434,938.617 679.5915182 1
National Forests
Arapaho and Roosevelt Pawnee Ranger District 768,181.308 1,200.283169
National Forests
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,491,799 3,893 4 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bighorn National Forest Supervisors Office--Northern Zone 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bighorn National Forest Powder River Ranger 334,338.557 522.4039414 1
District
Bighorn National Forest Medicine Wheel Ranger 364,531.511 569.5804262
District
Bighorn National Forest Tongue Ranger District 413,999.193 646.8736714 1
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,112,869 1,738 2 1 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black Hills National Supervisors Office--Northern Zone
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Black Hills National Hell Canyon Ranger 601,669.09 940.1078552 1
Forest District
Black Hills National Bearlodge Ranger 202,625.501 316.6023117
Forest District
Black Hills National Mystic Ranger District 357,436.171 558.4939592 1 1
Forest
Black Hills National Northern Hills Ranger 375,747.212 587.1049583 1
Forest District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,537,477 2,402 3 0 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre Supervisors Office--Southwest Zone 1 1
and Gunnison National
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre Ouray Ranger District 364,348.11 569.2938623 1
and Gunnison National
Forests
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre Grand Valley Ranger 557,621.761 871.2839115 1
and Gunnison National District
Forest
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre Paonia Ranger District 479,991.893 749.9872551
and Gunnison National
Forests
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre Gunnison Ranger District 1,357,830.94 2,121.610622 1
and Gunnison National
Forests
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre Norwood Ranger District 393,437.672 614.7462991
and Gunnison National
Forests
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 3,153,230 4,926 3 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medicine Bow-Routt Supervisors Office--Central Zone 1 1
National Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medicine Bow-Routt Brush Creek-Hayden 580,315.38 906.7426874 1
National Forest Ranger District
Medicine Bow-Routt Yampa Ranger District 394,695.695 616.7119588
National Forest
Medicine Bow-Routt Hahns Peak-Bears Ears 500,034.678 781.304103 1
National Forest Ranger District
Medicine Bow-Routt Parks Ranger District 489,062.726 764.1604304
National Forest
Medicine Bow-Routt Douglas Ranger District/ 2,258,381.233 3,528.720309
National Forest Thunder Basin National
Grassland
Medicine Bow-Routt Laramie Ranger District 370,367.717 578.6994973 1
National Forest
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 4,592,857 7,176 3 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nebraska National Forest Supervisors Office--Northern Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nebraska National Forest Ft. Pierre Ranger 209,044.225 326.6315672
District
Nebraska National Forest Bessey Ranger District 206,784.05 323.1000438
Nebraska National Forest Pine Ridge Ranger 355,082.906 554.816983
District
Nebraska National Forest Fall River Ranger 806,962.411 1,260.878635
District
Nebraska National Forest Wall Ranger District 486,993.076 760.9266025
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,064,866 3,226 0 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pike and San Isabel Supervisors Office--Southeast Zone
National Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pike and San Isabel Comanche Ranger District 1,122,279.791 1,753.56199
National Forests
Pike and San Isabel San Carlos Ranger 422,072.698 659.4885215 1
National Forests District
Pike and San Isabel Pikes Peak Ranger 282,996.078 442.1813256 1
National Forests District
Pike and San Isabel Salida Ranger District 504,269.308 787.9207122 1
National Forests
Pike and San Isabel Leadville Ranger 304,779.674 476.2181917 1
National Forests District
Pike and San Isabel South Platte Ranger 450,225.879 703.4778625
National Forests District
Pike and San Isabel South Park Ranger 540,709.353 844.8582762
National Forests District
Pike and San Isabel Cimarron Ranger District 341,728.55 533.9508031
National Forests
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 3,969,061 6,201 4 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rio Grande National Supervisors Office--Southeast Zone 1
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rio Grande National Divide Ranger District 1,010,662.796 1,579.160455 1
Forest
Rio Grande National Saguache Ranger District 528,013.921 825.0216658
Forest
Rio Grande National Conejos Peak Ranger 398,614.196 622.8346167 1
Forest District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,937,290 3,027 2 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Juan National Forest Supervisors Office--Southwest Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------
San Juan National Forest Pagosa Ranger District 698,223.174 1,090.973595
San Juan National Forest Columbine Ranger 763,669.445 1,193.233384 1
District
San Juan National Forest Mancos/Dolores Ranger 632,767.363 988.6989017 1
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,094,659 3,272 2 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shoshone National Forest Supervisors Office--Northern Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shoshone National Forest Wapiti Ranger District 785,014.473 1,226.584986 1
Shoshone National Forest Washakie Ranger District 320,076.121 500.1188874 1
Shoshone National Forest Wind River Ranger 546,636.824 854.1199484
District
Shoshone National Forest Greybull Ranger District 310,929.44 485.8271999
Shoshone National Forest Clarks Fork Ranger 506,591.215 791.5486903
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,469,248 3,858 2 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White River National Supervisors Office--Southeast Zone
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
White River National Dillon Ranger District 389,954.25 609.3034523 1
Forest
White River National Blanco Ranger District 366,166.116 572.1344958
Forest
White River National Aspen Ranger District 274,937.841 429.5903317
Forest
White River National Rifle Ranger District 313,945.948 490.5404926
Forest
White River National Eagle Ranger District 321,654.275 502.5847522
Forest
White River National Sopris Ranger District 433,146.383 676.7911526
Forest
White River National Holy Cross Ranger 382,909.647 598.2962613
Forest District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,482,714 3,879 1 0 0
=============================================================
Total for Region 27,906,075 43,603 26 4 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

USDA Forest Service Region 3
LEI Field Staffing and Forest/District Size
November 1, 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Forest District Acres Sq. Miles LEO CPT SA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache-Sitgreaves Supervisors Office--Northern Arizona Zone
National Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apache-Sitgreaves Black Mesa Ranger 616,541.499 963.3459917 1
National Forests District
Apache-Sitgreaves Springerville Ranger 273,662.17 427.5970961
National Forests District
Apache-Sitgreaves Lakeside Ranger District 270,459.087 422.5922798 1
National Forests
Apache-Sitgreaves Clifton Ranger District 500,626.659 782.2290727
National Forests
Apache-Sitgreaves Alpine Ranger District 449,398.469 702.1850353 1
National Forests Southern New Mexico
Zone
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,110,687 3,297 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carson National Forest Supervisors Office--Northern New Mexico Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carson National Forest Camino Real Ranger 339,460.069 530.4063018
District
Carson National Forest El Rito Ranger District 280,471.37 438.2364705 1
Carson National Forest Tres Piedras Ranger 387,716.828 605.8074809
District
Carson National Forest Canjilon Ranger District 150,657.454 235.4022476
Carson National Forest Jicarilla Ranger 157,892.421 246.7068822
District
Carson National Forest Questa Ranger District 276,275.915 431.6810723 1
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,592,474 2,488 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cibola National Forest Supervisors Office--Northern New Mexico Zone 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cibola National Forest Mount Taylor Ranger 653,687.095 1,021.38598
District
Cibola National Forest Sandia Ranger District 121,609.824 190.0153301 2
Cibola National Forest Mountainair Ranger 255,680.068 399.5000643
District
Cibola National Forest Kiowa/Rita Blanca 863,345.686 1,348.977494
National Grasslands
Cibola National Forest Black Kettle National 244,456.075 381.9625778
Grassland
Cibola National Forest Magdalena Ranger 1,076,878.544 1,682.622549
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 3,215,657 5,024 2 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coconino National Forest Supervisors Office--Northern Arizona Zone 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coconino National Forest Flagstaff Ranger 945,954.916 1,478.054402 2
District
Coconino National Forest Mogollon Rim Ranger 517,763.706 809.0057067
District
Coconino National Forest Red Rock Ranger District 537,216.785 839.4011383 2
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,000,935 3,126 4 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coronado National Forest Supervisors Office--Southern Arizona Zone 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coronado National Forest Sierra Vista Ranger 321,532.476 502.3944418 2
District
Coronado National Forest Douglas Ranger District 433,953.616 678.052455
Coronado National Forest Nogales Ranger District 352,562.921 550.8795073 1
Coronado National Forest Santa Catalina Ranger 265,840.793 415.3761963 2
District
Coronado National Forest Safford Ranger District 411,205.774 642.5089555
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,785,095 2,789 5 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gila National Forest Supervisors Office--Southern New Mexico Zone 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gila National Forest Wilderness Ranger 685,129.041 1,070.514015 1
District
Gila National Forest Black Range Ranger 556,756.742 869.9323182
District
Gila National Forest Reserve Ranger District 61,2876.15 957.6188845
Gila National Forest Silver City Ranger 405,764.778 634.007399 1
District
Gila National Forest Glenwood Ranger District 525,643.052 821.3171828
Gila National Forest Quemado Ranger District 603,228.699 942.5447432
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 3,389,398 5,295 2 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaibab National Forest Supervisors Office--Northern Arizona Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaibab National Forest Tusayan Ranger District 331,598.85 518.123149
Kaibab National Forest North Kaibab Ranger 655,892.19 1,024.83144
District
Kaibab National Forest Williams Ranger District 593,897.441 927.9646543 1
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,581,388 2,470 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Forest Supervisors Office--Southern New Mexico Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Forest Sacramento Ranger 549,067.408 857.9177357
District
Lincoln National Forest Smokey Bear Ranger 423,758.577 662.122707 1
District
Lincoln National Forest Guadalupe Ranger 289,126.404 451.7599584
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,261,952 1,971 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prescott National Forest Supervisors Office--Central Arizona Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prescott National Forest Verde Ranger District 327,243.298 511.3175998
Prescott National Forest Chino Valley Ranger 646,077.645 1,009.496215 1
District
Prescott National Forest Bradshaw Ranger District 438,229.096 684.732891
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,411,550 2,205 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Santa Fe National Forest Supervisors Office--Northern New Mexico Zone 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Santa Fe National Forest Coyote Ranger District 268,307.077 419.2297638
Santa Fe National Forest Espanola Ranger District 366,235.263 572.2425381
Santa Fe National Forest Jemez Ranger District 245,636.817 383.8074868 1
Santa Fe National Forest Cuba Ranger District 254,630.763 397.860526
Santa Fe National Forest Pecos-Las Vegas Ranger 546,995.192 854.6798977 1
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,681,805 2,627 2 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tonto National Forest Supervisors Office--Central Arizona Zone 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tonto National Forest Cave Creek Ranger 611,250.751 955.0791984
District
Tonto National Forest Globe Ranger District 471,080.481 736.0631742 1
Tonto National Forest Mesa Ranger District 444,806.104 695.0094646 3
Tonto National Forest Payson Ranger District 463,372.801 724.0199259 1
Tonto National Forest Pleasant Valley Ranger 437,190.565 683.1101862
District
Tonto National Forest Tonto Basin Ranger 538,716.444 841.7443565 1
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,966,417 4,635 6 1 1
=======================================================================================
Total for Region 22,997,361 35,933 29 5 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

USDA Forest Service Region 4
LEI Field Staffing and Forest/District Size
November 1, 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Forest District Acres Sq. Miles LEO CPT SA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Supervisors Office: Southern Utah Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Vernal Ranger District 341,243.295 533.1925925 1
Ashley Duchesne Ranger District 365,908.74 571.732346
Ashley Flaming Gorge Ranger 354,282.467 553.5662966 1
District
Ashley Roosevelt Ranger 339,843.917 531.0060642
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,401,278 2,185 2 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dixie Supervisors Office: Southern Utah Zone 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dixie Pine Valley Ranger 480,979.935 751.53107 1
District
Dixie Powell Ranger District 388,877.841 607.6215629
Dixie Cedar City Ranger 404,452.468 631.9569154 1
District
Dixie Escalante Ranger 436,975.068 682.7734731
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,711,285 2,673 2 1 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishlake Supervisors Office: Southern Utah Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fishlake Beaver Ranger District 313,238.312 489.434812
Fishlake Fillmore Ranger District 493,436.615 770.9946312
Fishlake Richfield Ranger 460,428.16 719.4189258 1
District
Fishlake Fremont River Ranger 521,160.942 814.313887
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,788,264 2,794 1 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manti-La Sal Supervisors Office: Southern Utah Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manti-La Sal Moab Ranger District 174,410.273 272.5160228 1
Manti-La Sal Monticello Ranger 368,658.381 576.0286604
District
Manti-La Sal Sanpete Ranger District 259,406.045 405.3219037 1
Manti-La Sal Price Ranger District 278,497.125 435.1517128
Manti-La Sal Ferron Ranger District 333,253.279 520.7081943
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,414,225 2,209 2 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uinta-Wasatch-Cache Supervisors Office: Nothern Utah Zone 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Uinta-Wasatch-Cache Ogden Ranger District 584,697.682 913.5900334 1
Uinta-Wasatch-Cache Salt Lake Ranger 288,041.538 450.0648556 1
District
Uinta-Wasatch-Cache Evanston-Mt. View Ranger 494,504.776 772.6636325 1
District
Uinta-Wasatch-Cache Heber-Kamas Ranger 536,932.688 838.957237 1
District
Uinta-Wasatch-Cache Logan Ranger District 368,948.827 576.4824817 1
Uinta-Wasatch-Cache Pleasant Grove Ranger 150,637.619 235.3712545
District
Uinta-Wasatch-Cache Spanish Fork Ranger 489,193.069 764.3640913 1
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,912,956 4,551 6 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boise Supervisors Office: Western Idaho Zone 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boise Mountain Home Ranger 734,791.741 1,148.111975 1
District
Boise Emmett Ranger District 353,824.782 552.851165
Boise Idaho City Ranger 568,017.047 887.5265434 1
District
Boise Lowman Ranger District 468,938.635 732.7165408
Boise Cascade Ranger District 401,299.862 627.0309684 1
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,526,872 3,948 3 0 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payette Supervisors Office: Western Idaho Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------
Payette Council Ranger District 375,483.134 586.6923354 1
Payette McCall Ranger District 557,061.766 870.4089181
Payette Weiser Ranger District 121,902.543 190.4727043
Payette New Meadows Ranger 287,112.72 448.6135787
District
Payette Krassel Ranger District 1,065,746.279 1,665.228387
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,407,306 3,761 1 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sawtooth Supervisors Office: Western Idaho Zone 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sawtooth Sawtooth National 812,157.725 1,268.996313
Recreation Area
Sawtooth Ketchum Ranger District 329,683.021 515.1296663
Sawtooth Minidoka Ranger District 632,639.528 988.4991599 1
Sawtooth Fairfield Ranger 415,658.203 649.4658743
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,190,138 3,422 1 1 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridger-Teton Supervisors Office: Idaho/Wyoming Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridger-Teton Big Piney Ranger 449,856.202 702.9002423
District
Bridger-Teton Kemmerer Ranger District 286,027.094 446.9172881
Bridger-Teton Greys River Ranger 485,101.506 757.9710237
District
Bridger-Teton Blackrock Ranger 722,458.846 1,128.841829
District
Bridger-Teton Jackson Ranger District 695,025.412 1,085.977094 1
Bridger-Teton Pinedale Ranger District 827,879.068 1,293.560909 1
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 3,466,348 5,416 2 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caribou-Targhee Supervisors Office: Idaho/Wyoming Zone 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caribou-Targhee Westside Ranger District 416,464.192 650.7252315 1
Caribou-Targhee Soda Springs Ranger 365,373.927 570.8967011
District
Caribou-Targhee Montpelier Ranger 428,045.876 668.8216121
District
Caribou-Targhee Dubois Ranger District 458,070.499 715.7350796
Caribou-Targhee Ashton/Island Park 668,823.661 1,045.036861 1
Ranger District
Caribou-Targhee Teton Basin Ranger 267,704.074 418.2875721
District
Caribou-Targhee Palisades Ranger 472,994.294 739.0535076
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 3,077,476 4,808 2 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salmon-Challis Supervisors Office: Idaho/Wyoming Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------
Salmon-Challis North Fork Ranger 775,711.035 1,212.048366
District
Salmon-Challis Lost River Ranger 814,856.994 1,273.213921
District
Salmon-Challis Salmon-Cobalt Ranger 642,333.138 1,003.645423 1
District
Salmon-Challis Middle Fork Ranger 1,031,514.734 1,611.741604
District
Salmon-Challis Challis-Yankee Fork 802,906.788 1,254.541726 1
Ranger District
Salmon-Challis Leadore Ranger District 328,967.012 514.0109025
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 4,396,289 6,869 2 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humboldt-Toiyabe Supervisors Office: Nevada Zone 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Humboldt-Toiyabe Santa Rosa Ranger 300,733.997 469.8968218
District
Humboldt-Toiyabe Ely Ranger District 1,024,430.663 1,600.672744 1
Humboldt-Toiyabe Carson Ranger District 601,511.531 939.8616685 1
Humboldt-Toiyabe Spring Mountains 322,198.476 503.435066 2 1
National Recreation
Area
Humboldt-Toiyabe Austin-Tonopah Ranger 2,136,574.262 3,338.396937
District
Humboldt-Toiyabe Mountain City-Ruby 1,201,311.924 1,877.049685
Mountains-Jarbidge
Ranger District
Humboldt-Toiyabe Bridgeport Ranger 1,117,357.653 1,745.87115
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 6,704,118 10,475 5 1 1
=============================================================
Grand Total for 33,996,558 53,119 29 5 4
Region
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

USDA Forest Service Region 5
LEI Field Staffing and Forest/District Size
November 1, 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Forest District Acres Sq. Miles LEO CPT SA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angeles National Forest Supervisors Office--South Zone 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angeles National Forest Los Angeles Gateway 337,521.811 527.377775 3
Ranger District
Angeles National Forest San Gabriel Mountains 369,194.179 576.8658443 3
National Monument
Ranger District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 706,715 1,104 6 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleveland National Supervisors Office--South Zone 1
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleveland National Trabuco Ranger District 160,639.476 250.9991552 3
Forest
Cleveland National Palomar Ranger District 186,336.932 291.1514253
Forest
Cleveland National Descanso Ranger District 214,840.005 335.6874726 1
Forest
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 561,816 877 4 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eldorado National Forest Supervisors Office--Central Zone 1 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eldorado National Forest Pacific Ranger District 199,660.132 311.9689236 1
Eldorado National Forest Placerville Ranger 205,504.264 321.1003786 2
District
Eldorado National Forest Georgetown Ranger 193,082.902 301.6920026 1
District
Eldorado National Forest Amador Ranger District 195,405.308 305.3207612
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 793,652 1,240 4 1 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inyo National Forest Supervisors Office--South Zone 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Inyo National Forest Mt. Whitney Ranger 594,693.306 929.2081935 1
District
Inyo National Forest Mammoth Ranger District 167,275.265 261.3675743 2
Inyo National Forest Mono Lake Ranger 484,973.3 757.770702
District
Inyo National Forest White Mountain Ranger 849,963.807 1,328.06831
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,096,905 3,276 3 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Klamath National Forest Supervisors Office--North Zone 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Klamath National Forest Salmon River Ranger 371,773.336 580.8957763 1
District
Klamath National Forest Oak Knoll Ranger 335,238.595 523.81025 1
District
Klamath National Forest Happy Camp Ranger 359,549.495 561.7960278 1
District
Klamath National Forest Ukonom Ranger District 190,355.51 297.4304535 1
Klamath National Forest Goosenest Ranger 361,460.835 564.7824955 1
District
Klamath National Forest Scott River Ranger 277,428.094 433.4813515
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,895,805 2,962 5 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lake Tahoe Basin LTBMU--Central Zone 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Total] 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lassen National Forest Supervisors Office--North Zone 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lassen National Forest Hat Creek Ranger 541,876.456 846.6818738 1
District
Lassen National Forest Almanor Ranger District 549,816.542 859.0882572 2
Lassen National Forest Eagle Lake Ranger 397,018.986 620.3421003 1
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,488,711 2,326 4 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Los Padres National Supervisors Office--South Zone 1
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Los Padres National Mt. Pinos Ranger 493,625.377 771.2895711 1
Forest District
Los Padres National Monterey Ranger District 333,703.014 521.4109047 1
Forest
Los Padres National Ojai Ranger District 323,861.482 506.0335136 1
Forest
Los Padres National Santa Lucia Ranger 514,028.633 803.1696555 1 2
Forest District
Los Padres National Santa Barbara Ranger 305,051.648 476.6431506
Forest District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,970,270 3,078 4 1 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mendocino National Supervisors Office--North Zone 1 1
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mendocino National Grindstone Ranger 534,154.737 834.6166892 1
Forest District
Mendocino National Upper Lake Ranger 312,110.887 487.6732102 2
Forest District
Mendocino National Covelo Ranger District 227,019.158 354.7173979
Forest
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,073,284 1,677 3 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modoc National Forest Supervisors Office--North Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------
Modoc National Forest Devils Garden Ranger 596,525.506 932.0710064 1
District
Modoc National Forest Big Valley Ranger 495,241.585 773.8148958
District
Modoc National Forest Warner Mountain Ranger 361,422.456 564.7225286
District
Modoc National Forest Doublehead Ranger 569,835.487 890.3678553
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,023,025 3,160 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plumas National Forest Supervisors Office--Central Zone 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plumas National Forest Feather River Ranger 392,504.844 613.2887552 1 1
District
Plumas National Forest Beckwourth Ranger 492,556.063 769.6187679 1
District
Plumas National Forest Mt. Hough Ranger 546,739.06 854.2796929 1
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,431,799 2,237 3 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Bernardino National Supervisors Office--South Zone 1 1
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
San Bernardino National Mountaintop Ranger 285,393.382 445.9271135 1
Forest District
San Bernardino National Front Country Ranger 270,913.954 423.3030096 2
Forest District
San Bernardino National San Jacinto Ranger 249,175.377 389.3364858 2
Forest District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 805,482 1,258 5 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sequoia National Forest Supervisors Office--South Zone 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sequoia National Forest Kern River Ranger 663,351.396 1,036.486448 2
District
Sequoia National Forest Western Divide Ranger 337,715.415 527.680281 1
District
Sequoia National Forest Hume Lake Ranger 183,462.992 286.6608949 1
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,184,529 1,850 4 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shasta-Trinity National Supervisors Office--North Zone 1 2
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shasta-Trinity National Hayfork Ranger District 356,869.7 557.6088484
Forest
Shasta-Trinity National Yolla Bolla Ranger 239,483.664 374.193186 1
Forest District
Shasta-Trinity National Big Bar Ranger District 444,415.519 694.3991758
Forest
Shasta-Trinity National Weaverville Ranger 435,074.817 679.8043311 1
Forest District
Shasta-Trinity National Shasta Lake Ranger 435,936.848 681.1512533 2
Forest District
Shasta-Trinity National Mt. Shasta Ranger 383,605.57 599.3836411 1
Forest District
Shasta-Trinity National McCloud Ranger District 420,114.313 656.4285458
Forest
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,715,500 4,242 5 1 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra National Forest Supervisors Office--Central Zone 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra National Forest Bass Lake Ranger 482,227.063 753.4797075 2
District
Sierra National Forest High Sierra Ranger 912,076.034 1,425.118654 2
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,394,303 2,178 4 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six Rivers National Supervisors Office--North Zone 2 1
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Six Rivers National Lower Trinity Ranger 225,251.129 351.9548523 1
Forest District
Six Rivers National Gasquet Ranger District 358,968.124 560.8876356 1
Forest
Six Rivers National Orleans Ranger District 219,101.375 342.3458635
Forest
Six Rivers National Mad River Ranger 280,272.721 437.9260815
Forest District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,083,593 1,693 4 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stanislaus National Supervisors Office--Central Zone 1 1
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stanislaus National Calaveras Ranger 329,506.565 514.8539549
Forest District
Stanislaus National Summit Ranger District 308,933.844 482.7090808 2
Forest
Stanislaus National Mi-Wok Ranger District 209,918.127 327.9970386
Forest
Stanislaus National Groveland Ranger 241,995.661 378.1181815 1
Forest District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,090,354 1,703 3 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tahoe National Forest Supervisors Office--Central Zone 1 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tahoe National Forest Truckee Ranger District 247,235.479 386.3053955
Tahoe National Forest American River Ranger 235,338.636 367.7165807 1
District
Tahoe National Forest Yuba River Ranger 465,732.37 727.7067522 2
District
Tahoe National Forest Sierraville Ranger 231,171.682 361.2057152
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,179,478 1,842 3 1 2
=============================================================
Total for Region 2,349,5230 36,711 66 16 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

USDA Forest Service Region 6
LEI Field Staffing and Forest/District Size
November 1, 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Forest District Acres Sq. Miles LEO CPT SA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colville National Forest Supervisors Office: North Central Washington Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colville National Forest Republic Ranger District 244,492.445 382.0194049
Colville National Forest Newport Ranger District 257,738.558 402.716455 1
Colville National Forest Sullivan Lake Ranger 304,257.868 475.4028691
District
Colville National Forest Three Rivers Ranger 547,875.5 856.0553801 1
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,354,364 2,116 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia River Gorge 292,500.0 457.03125 1
National Scenic Area
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 292,500.0 457.03125 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deschutes National Supervisors Office: Central Oregon Zone 1
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deschutes National Crescent Ranger District 410,536.964 641.4639392 1
Forest
Deschutes National Bend/Fort Rock Ranger 1,061,746.112 1,658.978127 1
Forest District
Deschutes National Sisters Ranger District 397,832.939 621.6139017 1
Forest
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,870,116 2,922 3 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fremont-Winema National Supervisors Office: Central Oregon Zone 1
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fremont-Winema National Lakeview Ranger District 443,737.617 693.3399536 1
Forest
Fremont-Winema National Silver Lake Ranger 443,202.799 692.5043011
Forest District
Fremont-Winema National Chemult Ranger District 422,191.889 659.6747571
Forest
Fremont-Winema National Klamath Ranger District 203,475.186 317.9299454 1
Forest
Fremont-Winema National Chiloquin Ranger 475,550.886 743.0481827
Forest District
Fremont-Winema National Paisley Ranger District 323,464.915 505.4138769
Forest
Fremont-Winema National Bly Ranger District 504,323.71 788.0057143
Forest
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,815,947 4,399 2 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gifford Pinchot National Supervisors Office: Southwest Oregon Zone 1
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gifford Pinchot National Mt. Adams Ranger 710,549.6 1,110.233635 1
Forest District
Gifford Pinchot National Mount St. Helens 132,561.073 207.1266554 1
Forest National Volcanic
Monument
Gifford Pinchot National Cowlitz Valley District 292,500 457.03125 1
Forest
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,496,966 2,339 3 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malheur National Forest Supervisors Office: Northeast Oregon Zone 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Malheur National Forest Blue Mountain Ranger 744,118.577 1,162.685155
District
Malheur National Forest Emigrant Creek Ranger 651,936.334 1,018.650415
District
Malheur National Forest Prairie City Ranger 390,486.212 610.1346421
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,786,541 2,791 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Supervisors Office: Northwest Oregon Zone 1
National Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Mt. Baker Ranger 556,067.449 868.8552981 1
National Forest District
Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Darrington Ranger 565,321.013 883.313991 1
National Forest District
Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Snoqualmie Ranger 536,774.313 838.7097772 2
National Forest District
Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Skykomish Ranger 367,399.942 574.06235 1
National Forest District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,025,562 3,164 5 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mt. Hood National Forest Supervisors Office: 2 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mt. Hood National Forest Barlow Ranger District 178,500.588 278.9071396 1
Mt. Hood National Forest Zigzag Ranger District 266,679.211 416.6862232 1
Mt. Hood National Forest Clackamas River Ranger 407,078.558 636.0601806
District
Mt. Hood National Forest Hood River Ranger 207,901.605 324.8462246 1
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,060,159 1,656 5 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ochoco National Forest Supervisors Office: Central Oregon Zone 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ochoco National Forest Paulina Ranger District 383,582.797 599.3480577
Ochoco National Forest Crooked River National 173,645.752 271.3214591 1
Grassland
Ochoco National Forest Lookout Mountain Ranger 355,546.464 555.5412914
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 912,775 1,426 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okanogan-Wenatchee Supervisors Office: North Central Washington Zone 1 1
National Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Okanogan-Wenatchee Naches Ranger District 560,541.671 875.8462692 1
National Forest
Okanogan-Wenatchee Entiat Ranger District 276,563.781 432.130862
National Forest
Okanogan-Wenatchee Cle Elum Ranger District 477,292.668 745.7697162 2
National Forest
Okanogan-Wenatchee Wenatchee River Ranger 795,896.628 1,243.588352 1
National Forest District
Okanogan-Wenatchee Methow Valley Ranger 1,334,630.525 2,085.359978 1
National Forest District
Okanogan-Wenatchee Tonasket Ranger District 398,630.248 622.8596977
National Forest
Okanogan-Wenatchee Chelan Ranger District 412,358.027 644.3093499
National Forest
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 4,255,913 6,649 5 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Olympic National Forest Supervisors Office: Northwest Oregon Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------
Olympic National Forest Hood Canal Ranger 157,090.127 245.4532973
District/Quilcene
Olympic National Forest Hood Canal Ranger 227,473.748 355.4276942 1
District/Hoodsport
Olympic National Forest Pacific Ranger District/ 165,823.041 259.0984739
Forks
Olympic National Forest Pacific Ranger District/ 147,023.649 229.724427 1
Quinault
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 697,410 1,089 2 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rogue River-Siskiyou Supervisors Office: Southwest Oregon Zone 1 1
National Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogue River-Siskiyou Siskiyou Mountains 231,330.912 361.4545129 1
National Forests Ranger District
Rogue River-Siskiyou High Cascades Ranger 459,259.701 717.5932088 1
National Forests District
Rogue River-Siskiyou Powers Ranger District 162,340.066 253.6563265
National Forests
Rogue River-Siskiyou Gold Beach Ranger 490,521.69 766.4400605 1
National Forests District
Rogue River-Siskiyou Wild Rivers Ranger 509,254.026 795.7093325 1
National Forests District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,852,706 2,894 4 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Siuslaw National Forest Supervisors Office: Northeast Oregon Zone1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Siuslaw National Forest Hebo Ranger District 179,722.853 280.8169282 1
Siuslaw National Forest Central Coast Ranger 655,885.777 1,024.821419 1
District--ODNRA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 835,608 1,305 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umatilla National Forest Supervisors Office: Northeast Oregon Zone 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Umatilla National Forest Walla Walla Ranger 408,273.007 637.9265068 1
District
Umatilla National Forest North Fork John Day 512,458.491 800.7163082
Ranger District
Umatilla National Forest Pomeroy Ranger District 347,550.626 543.0477971
Umatilla National Forest Heppner Ranger District 229,818.381 359.0911833
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,498,100 2,340 1 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua National Forest Supervisors Office: Southwest Oregon Zone 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua National Forest Cottage Grove Ranger 88,730.257 138.6410127 1
District
Umpqua National Forest Diamond Lake Ranger 316,631.984 494.7374227
District
Umpqua National Forest Tiller Ranger District 362,434.89 566.3044571
Umpqua National Forest North Umpqua Ranger 268,045.44 418.8209571 1
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,035,842 1,618 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wallowa-Whitman National Supervisors Office: Northeast Oregon Zone
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wallowa-Whitman National Hells Canyon National 25,115.873 39.24354739
Forest Recreation Area
Wallowa-Whitman National Hells Canyon National 114,989.505 179.6710833
Forest Recreation Area
Wallowa-Whitman National Eagle Cap Ranger 391,530.927 611.767009
Forest District
Wallowa-Whitman National La Grande Ranger 459,055.435 717.2740429 1
Forest District
Wallowa-Whitman National Hells Canyon National 510,611.642 797.8306072 1
Forest Recreation Area
Wallowa-Whitman National Wallowa Valley Ranger 356,707.568 557.3555167 1
Forest District
Wallowa-Whitman National Whitman Ranger District 667,191.625 1,042.486806 1
Forest
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,525,202 3,945 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Willamette National Supervisors Office: Central Oregon Zone 1
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Willamette National Middle Fork Ranger 725,799.32 1,134.06132 1
Forest District
Willamette National Detroit Ranger District 323,869.189 506.0455543 1
Forest
Willamette National McKenzie River Ranger 520,794.207 813.7408636 1
Forest District
Willamette National Sweet Home Ranger 230,829.262 360.6706844 1
Forest District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,801,291 2,814 4 1
=============================================================
Total for Region 27,824,935 43,475 51 7 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

USDA Forest Service Region 8
LEI Field Staffing and Forest/District Size
November 1, 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Forest District Acres Sq. Miles LEO CPT SA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chattahoochee-Oconee Supervisors Office: (CPT) (Chattahoochee/Francis Marion); (SA) 1 1
National Forest (Chattahoochee/Francis Marion)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chattahoochee-Oconee Chattooga River Ranger 452,013.464 706.2709642
National Forests District
Chattahoochee-Oconee Blue Ridge Ranger 583,696.312 912.0253922 2
National Forests District: LEO; LEO
Chattahoochee-Oconee Conasauga Ranger 484,335.157 756.7736034
National Forests District
Chattahoochee-Oconee Oconee Ranger District: 276,261.735 431.6589164 1
National Forests LEO
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,796,306 2,806 3 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cherokee National Forest Supervisors Office: (CPT) (NF in Alabama/Cherokee NF); (SA) 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cherokee National Forest Unaka Ranger District: 342,490.036 535.1406255 1
LEO
Cherokee National Forest Tellico Ranger District: 216,849.617 338.8274905 1
LEO/FTO
Cherokee National Forest Ocoee Ranger District: 240,193.532 375.3023539 1
LEO
Cherokee National Forest Watauga Ranger District: 428,755.686 669.9306896 1
LEO
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,228,288 1,919 4 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Boone National Supervisors Office: (CPT) 1
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Boone National Cumberland Ranger 473,612.902 740.0200825 3 1
Forest District: LEO; LEO;
LEO; (SA) (Daniel Boone
NF/LBL)
Daniel Boone National Stearns Ranger District: 379,998.15 593.7470472 1
Forest LEO
Daniel Boone National London Ranger District: 507,308.506 792.6694577 2 1
Forest LEO; LEO; (SA) (Daniel
Boone NF/LBL)
Daniel Boone National Redbird Ranger District: 682,149.695 1,065.858788 1
Forest (SA) (Daniel Boone NF/
LBL)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,043,069 3,192 6 1 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
El Yunque National Supervisors Office: (CPT)--(Vacant currently filled with
Forest Detailer); (SA) (NF in Florida/El Yunque)
----------------------------------------------------------------
El Yunque National Catalina Field Office: 55,829.81 87.23406857 2
Forest LEO; LEO
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 55,829 87 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Francis Marion and Supervisors Office: (CPT) (Chattahoochee/Francis Marion); (SA)
Sumter National Forest (Chattahoochee/Francis Marion)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Francis Marion and Enoree Ranger District: 396,057.024 618.8390362 1
Sumter National Forests LEO
Francis Marion and Long Cane Ranger 424,273.558 662.9273645 1
Sumter National Forests District: LEO
Francis Marion and Andrew Pickens Ranger 140,435.805 219.4309222 1
Sumter National Forests District: LEO
Francis Marion and Francis Marion Ranger 420,401.751 656.8776669 1
Sumter National Forests District: LEO
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,381,168 2,158 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Washington and Supervisors Office: (CPT); (SA) Vacant at this time 1
Jefferson National
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
George Washington and Clinch Ranger District: 319,084.203 498.5690147 1
Jefferson National LEO
Forest
George Washington and Warm Springs Ranger 316,979.924 495.2810792
Jefferson National District: Vacant
Forest
George Washington and Glenwood and Pedlar 446,753.988 698.0530333
Jefferson National Ranger Districts:
Forest Vacant
George Washington and Mount Rogers National 424,125.884 662.6966244 1
Jefferson National Recreation Area: LEO
Forest
George Washington and James River Ranger 359,368.973 561.513961 1
Jefferson National District: LEO
Forest
George Washington and Eastern Divide Ranger 776,693.667 1,213.583728 1
Jefferson National District: LEO
Forest
George Washington and Lee Ranger District: LEO 301,836.862 471.620048 1
Jefferson National
Forest
George Washington and North River Ranger 543,120.036 848.6249683
Jefferson National District: Vacant
Forest
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 3,487,963 5,449 5 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kisatchie National Supervisors Office: (CPT) (NF in Texas/Kisatchie NF); (SA) (NF
Forest in Texas/Kisatchie NF)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kisatchie National Catahoula Ranger 188,377.981 294.3405642 1
Forest District: LEO
Kisatchie National Caney Ranger District: 59,462.128 92.90956563 1
Forest LEO
Kisatchie National Kisatchie Ranger 175,685.477 274.5085295 1
Forest District: LEO
Kisatchie National Calcasieu Ranger 312,685.528 488.5710861 1
Forest District: LEO
Kisatchie National Winn Ranger District: 326,815.507 510.649176 1
Forest LEO
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,063,026 1,660 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Between the Lakes Supervisors Office: (CPT) Vacant; LEO; LEO; LEO; (SA) (Daniel 3
National Recreation Boone NF/LBL); (SA) (Daniel Boone NF/LBL); (SA) (Daniel Boone
Area NF/LBL)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 170,000 267 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Forests in Supervisors Office: (CPT) (NF in Alabama/Cherokee NF); (SA) 1 1
Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Forests in Talladega Ranger 247,902.82 387.3481158 1
Alabama District: LEO
National Forests in Bankhead Ranger 348,735.861 544.8997261 1
Alabama District: LEO
National Forests in Conecuh Ranger District: 171,329.656 267.7025597 1
Alabama LEO
National Forests in Tuskegee Ranger 15,649.837 24.45286764
Alabama District: Vacant
National Forests in Oakmulgee Ranger 329,347.264 514.6050465 1
Alabama District: LEO
National Forests in Shoal Creek Ranger 176,550.779 275.8605635
Alabama District: Vacant
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,289,516 2,014 4 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Forests in Supervisors Office: (CPT); (SA) (NF in Florida/El Yunque) 1 1
Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Forests in Osceola Ranger District: 337,981.867 528.0966129 1 &
Florida LEO; RLEO (1)
National Forests in Seminole Ranger 210,273.081 328.5516546 2
Florida District: LEO; LEO
National Forests in Lake George Ranger 232,923.967 363.9436601 2
Florida District: LEO; LEO
National Forests in Apalachicola Ranger 314,236.081 490.9938262 1
Florida District: LEO
National Forests in Wakulla Ranger District: 327,796.289 512.1816487
Florida Vacant
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,423,211 2,223 7 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Forests in Supervisors Office: (CPT); (SA) 1 1
Mississippi
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Forests in Homochitto Ranger 380,642.161 594.7533143 1
Mississippi District: LEO
National Forests in Holly Springs Ranger 529,166.081 826.821915 1 &
Mississippi District: LEO; RLEO (1)
National Forests in Bienville Ranger 388,448.533 606.9507689 1
Mississippi District: LEO
National Forests in Tombigbee Ranger 119,671.372 186.9864987 1
Mississippi District: LEO
National Forests in Delta Ranger District: 120,747.749 188.6683374 (1)
Mississippi RLEO
National Forests in Chickasawhay Ranger 193,951.557 303.0492769 1
Mississippi District: LEO
National Forests in De Soto Ranger District: 640,678.532 1,001.060102 1
Mississippi LEO
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,373,305 3,708 8 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Forests in Supervisors Office: (CPT); (SA) 1 1
North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Forests in Tusquittee Ranger 397,612.931 621.2701406 1
North Carolina District: LEO
National Forests in Cheoah Ranger District: 205,349.027 320.8578213 1
North Carolina LEO
National Forests in Nantahala Ranger 691,398.924 1,080.310707 1
North Carolina District: LEO
National Forests in Croatan Ranger District: 307,599.781 480.6246085 1
North Carolina LEO/FTO
National Forests in Grandfather Ranger 429,209.075 670.6391101
North Carolina District: Vacant
National Forests in Pisgah Ranger District: 311,086.809 486.0730891
North Carolina Vacant
National Forests in Appalachian Ranger 464,261.716 725.4088562
North Carolina District: Vacant
National Forests in Uwharrie Ranger 219,721.745 343.3151901 1
North Carolina District: LEO
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 3,026,240 4,728 5 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Forests in Supervisors Office: (CPT) (NF in Texas/Kisatchie NF); (SA) (NF 1 1
Texas in Texas/Kisatchie NF)
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Forests in Angelina Ranger 398,146.476 622.1038045 1
Texas District: LEO
National Forests in Caddo--Lyndon B. Johnson 183,888.085 287.3251021 1
Texas National Grasslands:
LEO
National Forests in Davy Crockett Ranger 389,609.015 608.7640226 1
Texas District: LEO
National Forests in Sabine Ranger District: 454,542.489 710.222565 1
Texas LEO
National Forests in Sam Houston Ranger 495,315.845 773.9309274 2
Texas District: LEO; LEO
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,921,501 3,002 6 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ouachita National Forest Supervisors Office: (CPT); (SA) 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ouachita National Forest Cold Springs Ranger 192,550.649 300.860358
District: Vacant
Ouachita National Forest Kiamichi Ranger 126,353.337 197.4270678 1
District: LEO (Kiamichi
and Choctaw are
combined)
Ouachita National Forest Choctaw Ranger District 138,918.461 217.0600732
Ouachita National Forest Poteau Ranger District: 241,949.877 378.0466428
Combined with Cold
Springs
Ouachita National Forest Winona Ranger District: 158,864.261 248.2253826 1
LEO David Cadle
Ouachita National Forest Oden Ranger District: 226,999.245 354.6862828
combined with Mena
Ouachita National Forest Jessieville Ranger 248,905.44 388.9147095 1
District: LEO Greg
Burden
Ouachita National Forest Tiak Ranger District: 444,936.429 695.213098 1
LEO Josh Collins
Ouachita National Forest Mena Ranger District: 246,863.451 385.7241026 1
LEO Joe Liles
Ouachita National Forest Womble Ranger District: 248,260.859 387.9075517 1
LEO Chris Johnson
Ouachita National Forest Fourche Ranger District: 196,852.112 307.5813928
Combined with
Jessieville/Winona.
Ouachita National Forest Caddo Ranger District: 252,966.382 395.2599314
Combined with Womble
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,724,420 4,256 6 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozark-St. Francis Supervisors Office: (CPT); (SA) 1 1
National Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ozark-St. Francis St. Francis Ranger 31,135.214 48.64876617
National Forest District: Vacant
Ozark-St. Francis Magazine Mountain Ranger 132,417.669 206.9025857
National Forest District: Vacant
Ozark-St. Francis Bayou Ranger District: 301,006.578 470.3227298
National Forest Vacant
Ozark-St. Francis Buffalo Ranger District: 315,733.622 493.3337334
National Forest Vacant
Ozark-St. Francis Boston Mountain Ranger 308,968.379 482.7630412
National Forest District: Vacant
Ozark-St. Francis Sylamore Ranger 171,622.466 268.1600745 1
National Forest District: LEO
Ozark-St. Francis Big Piney Ranger 1
National Forest District: LEO
Ozark-St. Francis Pleasant Hill Ranger 272,012.545 425.0195579 1
National Forest District: LEO
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,532,896 2,395 3 1 1
=============================================================
Total for Region 25,516,745 39,871 71 10 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

USDA Forest Service Region 9
LEI Field Staffing and Forest/District Size
November 1, 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Forest District Acres Sq. Miles LEO CPT SA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny National Supervisors Office--South East Zone 1
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny National Marienville Ranger 367,113.051 573.6140831 1
Forest District
Allegheny National Bradford Ranger District 373,766.939 584.0107807 1
Forest
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 740,879 1,157 2 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chequamegon-Nicolet Supervisors Office--North West Zone 1
National Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chequamegon-Nicolet Washburn Ranger District 235,235.987 367.5561918
National Forest
Chequamegon-Nicolet Medford-Park Falls 346,779.01 541.8421462 1
National Forest Ranger District
Chequamegon-Nicolet Great Divide Ranger 457,570.639 714.9540484 1
National Forest District
Chequamegon-Nicolet Eagle River-Florence 429292.201 670.7689942
National Forest Ranger District
Chequamegon-Nicolet Lakewood-Laona Ranger 536,465.272 838.2268997 1
National Forest District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,005,343 3,133 3 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chippewa National Forest Supervisors Office--North West Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chippewa National Forest Blackduck Ranger 458,601.328 716.5645009
District
Chippewa National Forest Deer River Ranger 660,671.695 1,032.299415 1
District
Chippewa National Forest Walker Ranger District 478,866.021 748.2280799 1
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,598,139 2,497 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green Mountain and Supervisors Office--North East Zone 1 1
Finger Lakes National
Forests
----------------------------------------------------------------
Green Mountain and Manchester Ranger 600,709.2 938.6080278 1
Finger Lakes National District
Forests
Green Mountain and Hector Ranger District 16,811.219 26.26752666
Finger Lakes National
Forests
Green Mountain and Middlebury Ranger 117,113.996 182.9905991
Finger Lakes National District
Forests
Green Mountain and Rochester Ranger 119,267.066 186.3547712 1
Finger Lakes National District
Forests
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 853,901 1,334 2 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hiawatha National Forest Supervisors Office--North Central Zone 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hiawatha National Forest Rapid River Ranger 295,604.204 461.8815201 1
District
Hiawatha National Forest Manistique Ranger 198,266.808 309.7918555
District
Hiawatha National Forest Munising Ranger District 303,625.207 474.4143364
Hiawatha National Forest Sault Ste. Marie Ranger 303,206.228 473.7596821
District
Hiawatha National Forest St. Ignace Ranger 199,624.021 311.9125008 1
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,300,326 2,031 2 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hoosier National Forest Supervisors Office--South Central Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hoosier National Forest Tell City Ranger 364,656.443 569.7756324 1
District
Hoosier National Forest Brownstown Ranger 282,292.399 441.0818279 1
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 646,948 1,010 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huron-Manistee National Supervisors Office--North Central Zone 1
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huron-Manistee National Baldwin Ranger District 377,372.18 589.643968 1
Forest
Huron-Manistee National Cadillac Ranger District 217,031.039 339.1109636
Forest
Huron-Manistee National Huron Shores Ranger 270,845.197 423.1955769 1
Forest District
Huron-Manistee National Manistee Ranger District 244,667.312 382.2926346 1
Forest
Huron-Manistee National White Cloud Ranger 493,953.803 771.8027371
Forest District
Huron-Manistee National Tawas Ranger District 198,792.072 310.6125798
Forest
Huron-Manistee National Mio Ranger District 225,546.533 352.4164212 1
Forest
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 2,028,208 3,169 4 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Twain National Supervisors Office--South West Zone 1
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Twain National Potosi/Fredericktown 605,865.429 946.6646346 1
Forest Ranger District
Mark Twain National Salem Ranger District 309,564.541 483.6945451 1
Forest
Mark Twain National Ava/Cassville/Willow 732,308.05 1,144.231209 1 1
Forest Springs Ranger District
Mark Twain National Houston/Rolla/Cedar 579,156.931 904.9326106 1
Forest Creek Ranger District
Mark Twain National Poplar Bluff Ranger 339,182.211 529.9721495 1
Forest District
Mark Twain National Doniphan/Eleven Point 505,402.169 789.690807 1
Forest Ranger District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 3,071,479 4,799 6 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Midewin National South Central Zone 8,094 28.271875 1
Tallgrass Prairie
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total 18,094 28.271875 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monongahela National Supervisors Office--South East Zone 1 1
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monongahela National Gauley Ranger District 293,583.508 458.7241839 1
Forest
Monongahela National Cheat Ranger District/ 257,581.018 402.4702988 1
Forest Potomac Ranger District
Monongahela National Marlinton Ranger 311,249.399 486.3271357 1
Forest District/White Sulphur
Ranger District
Monongahela National Greenbrier Ranger 402,327.545 628.6367234
Forest District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,703,694 2,662 4 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ottawa National Forest Supervisors Office--North Central Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ottawa National Forest Bergland Ranger District 268,259.981 419.156176
Ottawa National Forest Watersmeet Ranger 261,339.148 408.3423764 1
District/Iron River
Ranger District
Ottawa National Forest Bessemer Ranger District 358,846.298 560.6972822
Ottawa National Forest Kenton Ranger District 264,042.827 412.5668741
Ottawa National Forest Iron River Ranger 227,134.894 354.8982346
District
Ottawa National Forest Ontonagon Ranger 182,803.747 285.630825 1
District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1,562,462 2,441 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shawnee National Forest Supervisors Office--South Central Zone 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shawnee National Forest Hidden Springs Ranger 556,396.607 869.3696075 2
District
Shawnee National Forest Mississippi Bluffs 373,630.965 583.7983216 1
Ranger District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 930,027 1,453 4 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superior National Forest Supervisors Office--North West Zone 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Superior National Forest Laurentian Ranger 751,115.442 1,173.617756 1
District
Superior National Forest Lacroix Ranger District 1,035,050.412 1,617.266099 1
Superior National Forest Gunflint Ranger District 644,051.342 1,006.330117 1
Superior National Forest Kawishiwi Ranger 718,380.285 1,122.469078
District
Superior National Forest Tofte Ranger District 739,307.99 1,155.168614
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 3,887,905 6,074 3 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne National Forest Supervisors Office--South East Zone 1 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne National Forest Athens Ranger District 539,178.652 842.4665566
Wayne National Forest Ironton Ranger District 316,982.265 495.2847367 1
(Wayne National Forest) Marietta Ranger District 1
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 856,160 1,337 3 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White Mountain National Supervisors Office--North East Zone
Forest
----------------------------------------------------------------
White Mountain National Massabesic Experimental 11,790.618 18.42283985
Forest Forest
White Mountain National Saco Ranger District 283,321.891 442.690407 1
Forest
White Mountain National Androscoggin Ranger 239,236.341 373.8067434 1
Forest District
White Mountain National Pemigewasset Ranger 412,965.848 645.2590702 2
Forest District
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 947,314 1,480 4
=============================================================
Total for Region 22,132,756 34,582 44 6 8
58 total positions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

USDA Forest Service Region 10
LEI Field Staffing and Forest/District Size
November 1, 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Forest District Acres Sq. Miles LEO CPT SA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chugach National Forest Supervisors Office--North Zone 1 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chugach National Forest Glacier Ranger District 2,600,495.976 4,063.273947 2
Chugach National Forest Cordova Ranger District 2,776,136.787 4,337.673193 1
Chugach National Forest Seward Ranger District 868,071.225 1,356.361648 2
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 6,244,703 9,757 5 1 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tongass National Forest Supervisors Office--South Zone 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tongass National Forest Yakutat Ranger District 1,255,372.161 1,961.518198
Tongass National Forest/ 1,942,532.97 3,035.207467 1
Petersburg Ranger
District
Tongass National Forest Wrangell Ranger District 1,737,306.921 2,714.541516 1
Tongass National Forest Ketchikan--Misty Ranger 3,328,718.695 5,201.121958 1
District
Tongass National Forest Thorne Bay Ranger 1,021,659.879 1,596.343472 1
District
Tongass National Forest Craig Ranger District 1,288,078.366 2,012.622158 1
Tongass National Forest Sitka Ranger District 1,926,141.142 3,009.595201 1
Tongass National Forest Hoonah Ranger District 673,051.995 1,051.643629
Tongass National Forest Juneau Ranger District 3,498,555.692 5,466.491118 2
Tongass National Forest Admiralty National 1,019,255.04 1,592.58585
Monument
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total 17,690,672 27,641 8 1
=============================================================
Total for Region 23,935,376 37,398 13 2 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[attachment 1]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/strategy/]
National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Editor's note: the image above is an animation. A video of
this animation has been retained in Committee file.
Cohesive Strategy News
Cohesive Strategy Crosswalk and Strategic Alignment \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Editor's note: the report and its appendices have been retained
in Committee file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cohesive Strategy Crosswalk and Strategic Alignment report
represents a deeper evaluation undertaken to ascertain national
progress made in implementing the Cohesive Strategy, identify gaps in
implementation, and attempt to reaffirm the Cohesive Strategy's goals
as the pathway to achieving its vision.

Read more about and see the Cohesive Strategy Crosswalk and
Strategic Alignment report.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/strategy/
thestrategy.shtml#alignment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Regional Strategy Committee eNewsletters \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://westerncohesivestrategynewsarchive.blogspot.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the latest and archived Western Regional Strategy
Committee eNewsletters on their website,\4\ as well other information
related to the Western Region and the Cohesive Strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://wildfireinthewest.org/.

Cohesive Strategy News Archive.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/strategy/
newsarchive.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow Us
Follow us on Twitter @US_Wildfire.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://twitter.com/US_Wildfire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow the Cohesive Strategy on Facebook.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.facebook.com/pages/Cohesive-Wildland-Fire-
Management-Strategy/169360
363246751.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[attachment 2]
National Wildland Fire Preparedness Levels
A Summary of the Nation's Wildfire Response Stages
The National Multi-Agency Coordination Group (NMAC), composed of
wildland fire representatives from each wildland fire agency based at
the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC), establishes Preparedness
Levels throughout the calendar year to ensure suppression resource
availability for emerging incidents across the country. Preparedness
Levels are dictated by fuel and weather conditions, fire activity, and
fire suppression resource availability throughout the country.
The five Preparedness Levels range from the lowest (1) to the
highest (5). Each Preparedness Level includes specific management
actions and involves increasing levels of interagency resource
commitments. As Preparedness Levels rise, so does the need for Incident
Management Teams (IMTs) and suppression resources, which include
wildland fire crews, engines, helicopters, airtankers and other
aircraft, and specialized heavy equipment, such as bulldozers. Many of
these resources and teams are Federal and state employees.
IMTs are specialized teams of experienced, interagency wildland
fire personnel who manage large, complex wildland fire incidents. IMTs
manage wildland fires so that local units can free up their resources
to focus on new and emerging incidents.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Prepared Prepared Prepared Prepared Prepare
ness ness ness ness dness
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level
(PL 1) (PL 2) (PL 3) (PL 4) 5 (PL
5)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
During At this This This This is
this time, stage, stage level the highest
fire several typically involves level of
personnel geographic involves two three or wildland
are able to areas are or more more fire
suppress experiencing geographic geographic activity.
wildfires in high to areas areas Several
their extreme fire requiring experiencing geographic
respective danger, significant large, areas are
geographic though they amounts of complex experiencin
areas are able to wildland wildfires g large,
without manage fire fire requiring complex
requesting activity suppression IMTs. wildland
additional without resources Geographic fire
wildland requesting from other areas are incidents,
fire many areas. At competing which have
resources wildland this point, for wildland the
from other fire NICC is fire potential
areas or suppression moving an suppression to exhaust
from the resources increased resources national
National from other amount of and about 60 wildland
Interagency areas. Few wildland percent of firefightin
Coordination of the fire the g
Center country's suppression country's resources.
(NICC), IMTs are resources IMTs and At least 80
based at the assigned to around the wildland percent of
National wildland country, firefighting the
Interagency fire including personnel country's
Fire Center incidents. IMTs. are IMTs and
in Boise, committed to wildland
Idaho. Fire wildland firefightin
activity is fire g personnel
typically incidents. are
below normal committed
at this to wildland
level. fire
incidents.
At this
level, all
fire-
qualified
Federal
employees
become
available
for
wildfire
response.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

National Wildland Fire Preparedness Levels
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[attachment 3]
Testimony of Christopher French, Deputy Chief, National Forest System,
U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
The Infrastructure Needs of the U.S. Energy Sector, Western Water and
Public Lands, and Consideration of a Legislative Proposal
Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the discussion draft of the Energy Infrastructure Act (EIA). My
testimony today will discuss the role of forests as nature-based
infrastructure, the threat wildfire poses to maintaining this
infrastructure, and funding provided by the EIA to improve forest
conditions and other natural resource-based infrastructure.
Forests as Nature-based Infrastructure
The USDA Forest Service manages over 193 million acres of national
forests and grasslands across 44 states and territories. These lands
amount to approximately 30 percent of all federally managed lands and
comprise approximately eight percent of the land area in the United
States. Infrastructure forms a physical link between Americans and
their National Forest System (NFS) lands, strengthening communities by
providing safe access to the many ecological, economic, and social
amenities NFS lands provide. Infrastructure on NFS lands affords access
to ranching, farming, logging, outdoor recreation, tourism, and energy
production, all of which support thriving small businesses,
particularly in rural communities. In addition, people depend on the
Forest Service road network to get to schools, stores, hospitals, and
their homes.
NFS lands are themselves critical infrastructure supporting the
nation's drinking water supply. Approximately 20 percent of the
nation's fresh water originates on national forests and grasslands. An
estimated 180 million people in over 68,000 communities rely on these
lands to capture and filter their drinking water. Major U.S. cities
that may seem distant from forests also rely on water flowing from NFS
lands. Los Angeles, Portland, Denver, and Atlanta all receive a
significant portion of their water supply from national forests.
National Forests are also part of the nation's network of public
and private forests that serve as the most efficient carbon capture
infrastructure mitigating the effects of climate change. Taken
together, the nation's forests and harvested wood products capture the
equivalent of more than 14 percent of economy-wide CO2
emissions in the United States annually.
Wildland Fire Threat to Forests
Devastating wildfires are the most critical threat to the ability
of our forests to sequester carbon, support local economies, and
provide clean water and other important resources upon which we rely.
In the United States, there are over a billion acres at risk of
wildland fire. This is, in part, a result of 110 years of fire
suppression policies that have led to unhealthy forests. Forest Service
research has identified hundreds of communities at high risk of
wildland fire.
About 63 million acres, or 32 percent, of the NFS lands are at high
or very high hazard for wildfires that would be difficult to contain.
The Forest Service carries out approximately 3 million acres of fuels
treatments annually. Unfortunately, this is not at the scale necessary
to address the problem. Without a paradigm shift in the way we treat
hazardous fuels on Federal and non-Federal land, and addressing the
impacts of climate change, we will remain in this current wildfire
crisis and destruction from wildfires will continue to threaten
communities across the West.
Forest Service research indicates we need to dramatically increase
the extent and impact of fuels treatments such as thinning, harvesting,
planting, and prescribed burning across all landscapes. To make
progress, we estimate that two to four times more acres than are
currently treated each year need to undergo fuels reduction treatments.
Our scientists have developed scenario planning tools to help target
fuels treatments in strategic locations that will reduce fire size and
severity. Our estimates suggest approximately 20 million acres of NFS
land and 30 million acres of other Federal, state, Tribal and private
lands in the West need treatment over the next 10 years in order to
significantly reduce wildfire exposure to communities. USDA included
these estimates among recommendations for decreasing the risk of severe
wildfire in the Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Strategy
provided in response to Executive Order 14008: Tackling the Climate
Crisis at Home and Abroad.
President Biden's American Jobs Plan calls for restoring nature-
based infrastructure to increase resilience and reduce the risks
associated with extreme wildfires. USDA supports additional investments
in wildfire risk reduction and ecosystem restoration. We believe such
investments will help make significant progress in reducing the threat
of wildland fire to communities across the West.
Section 8003: Wildfire Risk Reduction
Section 8003 of the EIA would provide $3.5 billion to USDA and the
Department of the Interior (DOI) for activities that involve responding
to and mitigating the threat of wildland fire. These provisions include
increased funding for: salaries and expenses of hardworking and
dedicated Federal wildland firefighters; mapping hazardous fuels
treatments and their relation to wildfires; technology related to
detecting and managing wildfires; the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Program (16 U.S.C. 7303); mechanical thinning and timber
harvesting focused on small diameter trees; community wildfire defense
grants; increasing use of prescribed fire and implementation of fuel
breaks; modifying and removing flammable vegetation on Federal land;
post-fire restoration; and other important provisions that would
greatly assist Federal agencies, states, and local communities in
reducing the threat of wildland fire. If funding through these
provisions is not obligated within 5 years of enactment it would be
returned to the Treasury. USDA supports additional investments in each
of these areas and would like to work with the Committee on technical
suggestions related to this section.
This section also directs USDA and DOI, in coordination with the
Office of Personnel Management, to establish a new ``wildland fire
manager'' occupational series. The new series would not affect
hazardous duty differential pay and would provide current wildland
firefighters with the option to either remain in their current
occupational series or convert to the new ``wildland fire manager''
series. Starting in Fiscal Year 2022, USDA and DOI will seek to convert
no fewer than 1,000 seasonal wildland firefighters to permanent, full-
time, and year-round wildland fire managers who hold responsibilities
for reducing hazardous fuels on Federal land. Section 8003 also
increases the base salary of wildland firefighters and wildland fire
managers in cases where their hourly pay is below the state minimum
wage or their position is in a location where recruitment or retention
is difficult. The Forest Service shares the Committee's concerns about
ensuring competitive pay for wildland firefighters. We are engaging
with the Office of Personnel Management and the wildland firefighter
community in seeking solutions that address this need.
Section 8003(c) provides an additional $100 million for
implementing Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP)
projects established under 16 U.S.C. 7303. Section 8003(e) requires
USDA to solicit new proposals, allows planning costs to be included,
discontinues funding of any proposal selected prior to September 2018,
and creates new selection criteria for projects, including
consideration of acres in the wildland-urban interface or a public
drinking water source area and costs per acre to be treated. USDA
supports additional funding for the CFLRP. We would like to work with
the Committee, as the new criteria would likely affect projects that
have been submitted and approved for funding, projects that were
eligible for extension under the 2018 Farm Bill provision, and the
types and locations of projects eligible for future CFLRP funding.
USDA supports the concept of a Community Wildfire Defense Grant
Program, however we would like to work with the Committee to ensure
that we don't have duplicative and competing programs for community
defense. Implementing community defense projects consistent with
Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP), in areas with high or very
high hazard potential, that are low-income, or in a community impacted
by a severe disaster is an important component of a national effort to
reduce risk to life and property from wildfire.
Section 8003(g) amends Section 10 of the Cooperative Forestry
Assistance Act (16 U.S.C. 2106) by limiting funding to any city, town,
or unincorporated area that has a population of not more than 10,000
inhabitants. Further, this section changes eligibility for assistance
by requiring states to seek to improve fire data submitted to the
National Fire Incident Reporting System and requiring a county in which
a volunteer fire department is located to adopt an ordinance or
regulation that requires the construction of new roofs on buildings
before State Fire Assistance or Volunteer Fire Assistance funds can be
disbursed. USDA would like to work with the Committee to ensure there
are no unintended consequences to existing program delivery should
these provisions be enacted.
Section 8004: Ecosystem Restoration
Section 8004 provides $2 billion to USDA and DOI for various
activities designed to improve ecosystem health. If the funding is not
obligated within 5 years of enactment it would be returned to the
Treasury. Of the funding provided to USDA, this section would be used
to:

Enter into landscape-scale contracts, including stewardship
contracts, to restore ecological health on Federal land;

Provide funds to states for implementing restoration
projects on Federal land through the Good Neighbor Authority
(16 U.S.C. 2113a);

Provide financial assistance to establish or improve
sawmills and wood processing facilities that process byproducts
from restoration projects;

Award grants to states to establish rental programs for
portable skidder bridges that minimize stream bed disturbance
on Federal and non-Federal land;

Detect, prevent and eradicate invasive species at points of
entry and grants for eradication of invasive species on non-
Federal land and on Federal land;

Restore, prepare or adapt recreation sites that have or may
likely experience use beyond their carrying capacity;

Restore native vegetation and mitigate environmental hazards
on Federal and non-Federal previously mined land; and

Establish a collaborative-based, landscape scale restoration
program to restore water quality or fish passage on Federal
land.

USDA supports additional investments in each of these areas. We
would like to work with the Committee on technical suggestions related
to this section, and look forward to working with the Committee to
explore other areas where further investment is warranted.
Other Natural Resources-Related Provisions
There are several other provisions in the EIA that relate to
natural resources managed by the USDA Forest Service including:
Civilian Climate Corps
Section 8003(c)(15) of the EIA provides $200 million for removing
flammable vegetation on Federal land and, to the extent practicable,
producing biochar through the use of the Civilian Climate Corps
established pursuant to E.O. 14008. USDA supports the use of the
Civilian Climate Corps under this provision, and also would like to
work with the Committee to make further investments that will mobilize
the next generation of new, diverse conservation and resilience workers
in restoring our public lands as proposed in the American Jobs Plan.
Legacy Roads and Trails Program
Section 8001 would require the Secretary to establish the Legacy
Roads and Trails Remediation Program. This program supports restoring
fish passages, road decommissioning, preparing roads for long-term
storage, relocating National Forest System roads, and converting NFS
roads to trails. If enacted, the program will require the Forest
Service to establish an annual process for selecting long-term storage
and road and trail decommissioning projects, and to solicit public
comment on these projects. The program prioritizes projects that:
protect or improve water quality; restore habitat of threatened,
endangered, or sensitive species; and maintain future access for the
public, permittees and firefighters. In implementing the program, the
Forest Service is required to ensure that the system of roads and
trails is adequate to meet any increasing demands, provides for
multiple use and sustained yield of products and services, does not
damage adjacent resources, and reflects long-term funding expectations.
USDA supports reestablishment of the Legacy Roads and Trails program.
Orphaned Well Site Plugging, Remediation, and Restoration Program
Section 6001 of the EIA includes the ``Revive Economic Growth and
Reclaim Orphaned Wells Act of 2021'' (S. 1076). USDA provided written
testimony to the Committee on S. 1076 on June 16, 2021. USDA
appreciates the Committee's attention to this important issue and
supports the goal of S. 1076, the ``Revive Economic Growth and Reclaim
Orphaned Wells Act of 2021,'' to remediate the thousands of orphaned
oil and gas wells on Federal and non-Federal lands.
S. 1076 directs the Secretary of the Interior in cooperation with
the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a program to identify and
permanently plug and remediate orphaned wells located on Federal lands.
Additionally, the bill requires the DOI to establish a Tribal grant
program administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and a state
program administered by the DOI that would enable qualifying Tribes and
states to undertake the same type of activities.
As noted in USDA's June 16th testimony, most orphaned wells on NFS
lands originated in areas of split estate and non-Federal development
before the Federal Government acquired the land. S. 1076 does not
specifically address the issue of split estate and how non-Federal
development before the Federal Government acquired the land would be
addressed under the Federal program or under the state grant programs.
If the intent is to manage these wells under the Federal program, we
would welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee to clarify the
definition of Federal land and the mechanisms for addressing these
wells under the bill. In addition, the Administration supports the
strengthening of Federal bonding regulations to ensure that proper
financial assurances are in place before development occurs to avoid
exacerbating the issue of orphaned wells in the future.
Tree Planting
Tree planting is a critical component of ecosystem restoration
given its role in mitigating climate change, increasing carbon storage
in forests, providing resilience in the face of invasive pests, and
creating and maintaining ecological services vital to this nation. The
National Forest System has planned reforestation activities on over 1.3
million acres of forestlands. These plans represent only about \1/3\ of
NFS reforestation needs, which are estimated at 4 million acres.
Wildfires create over 80 percent of reforestation needs, including
approximately 1 million acres that burned with high severity in 2020
alone. The Forest Service currently addresses only six percent of post-
wildfire replanting needs per year, resulting in a rapidly expanding
list of reforestation needs from wildfire and other natural
disturbances. To meet this challenge, we must dramatically increase the
rate of reforestation on the national forests. Current funding,
provided through the Reforestation Trust Fund, is capped at $30 million
per year. Therefore, USDA recommends adding a provision to eliminate
the cap on the Reforestation Trust Fund, as has been proposed in the
REPLANT Act. This additional provision would close the funding gap and
enable national forests to address reforestation needs now and into the
future.
This concludes my testimony. I welcome any questions the Committee
may have.

[all]