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


                       EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT'S
                     FY 2025 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE 
                          U.S. FOREST SERVICE

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

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                         Tuesday, June 4, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-127

                               __________

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


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
          
                             __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
55-911 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025                  
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------            
                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

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

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

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

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

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

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

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing Memo.....................................................     v
Hearing held on Tuesday, June 4, 2024............................     1

Statement of Members:

    Tiffany, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Wisconsin.........................................     1
    Kamlager-Dove, Hon. Sydney, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of California....................................     3
    Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arkansas..........................................     4

Statement of Witnesses:

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

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Curtis

        Rep. Curtis Letter to Thomas Vilsack, Secretary, U.S. 
          Dept. of Agriculture, dated June 3, 2024...............    34

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

To:        House Committee on Natural Resources Republican Members

From:     Subcommittee on Federal Lands--Aniela Butler and Brandon 
        Miller (Aniela@mail.house.gov and 
        Brandon.Miller@mail.house.gov; x6-7736)

Date:     Tuesday, June 4, 2024

Subject:   Oversight Hearing on ``Examining the President's FY 2025 
        Budget Request for the U.S. Forest Service''
________________________________________________________________________
        _______

    The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will hold an oversight hearing on 
``Examining the President's FY 2025 Budget Request for the U.S. Forest 
Service'' on Tuesday, June 4, 2024, at 10:15 a.m. in room 1324 
Longworth House Office Building.

    Member offices are requested to notify Will Rodriguez 
(Will.Rodriguez @mail.house.gov) by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, June 3, if 
their Member intends to participate in the hearing.

I. KEY MESSAGES

     Despite receiving billions of dollars in recent years, the 
            U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is still struggling to confront 
            the myriad challenges facing the agency, most notably the 
            historic wildfire crisis that has destroyed lives and 
            property, degraded air and water quality, and irreparably 
            damaged millions of acres of wildlife habitat.

     The USFS budget once again fails to address systemic 
            impediments to addressing the wildfire crisis, while 
            seeking significant increases in funding. Burdensome 
            regulations and frivolous litigation remain the primary 
            obstacles blocking better forest management outcomes.

     This hearing will provide an opportunity to hold the USFS 
            accountable and get answers on the agency's plans to 
            confront our nation's wildfire crisis, increase timber 
            production, improve forest health, reduce the deferred 
            maintenance backlog, and address the effects of Biden's 
            border security failures on our nation's forests.

II. WITNESSES

     Mr. Randy Moore, Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. 
            Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

III. BACKGROUND

    Budget Overview--Chief Randy Moore will be appearing before the 
Subcommittee on Federal Lands to discuss the Biden administration's 
fiscal year (FY) 2025 budget request for the U.S. Forest Service 
(USFS). The USFS's FY 2025 budget requests $8.9 billion in 
discretionary funding (including roughly $2.4 billion for the Wildfire 
Suppression Operations Reserve Fund), which reflects a $658 million 
increase over FY 2024 enacted levels.\1\ The USFS manages 193 million 
acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands, including 154 National 
Forests and 20 National Grasslands across 9 USFS Regions.\2\ Most of 
these lands are located in our western states. The USFS manages more 
federal land in the eastern United States than all the other land 
management agencies combined.\3\ Under the Multiple Use and Sustained 
Yield Act, NFS lands are to be managed for timber production, outdoor 
recreation, energy and mineral development, livestock grazing, 
watershed protection, and wildlife habitat.\4\ Every year, NFS lands 
host roughly 159 million visitors, contributing about $15.2 billion to 
the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, ``Fiscal 
Year 2025 Budget Justification'', https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/fs-fy25-congressional-budget-justification.pdf.
    \2\ Katie Hoover, et al., ``Federal Lands and Related Resources: 
Overview and Selected Issues for the 118th Congress,'' Congressional 
Research Service, February 24, 2023, https://www.crs.gov/Reports/
R43429. U.S. Forest Service, ``Forest Service Regions'', https://
www.fs.usda.gov/wildflowers/regions/index.shtml.
    \3\ Katie Hoover & Anne A. Riddle, ``National Forest System 
Management: Overview and Issues for Congress,'' Congressional Research 
Service, May 18, 2023, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/
R43872.
    \4\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 52.
    \5\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, ``Fiscal 
Year 2025 Budget Justification'', https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/fs-fy25-congressional-budget-justification.pdf.

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Wildfire Crisis--Since 2000, over 164 million acres have been 
damaged by wildfire in the U.S., a collective area that is roughly 
three times the size of the entire state of Utah.\6\ Prior to 2015, the 
United States never had more than 10 million acres burn in a single 
wildfire season. In the past decade, however, the country has now hit 
that ominous mark three times during the worst wildfire seasons on 
record (2015, 2017, and 2020).\7\ This crisis has wreaked havoc on 
landscapes and communities across the western United States. 
Catastrophic wildfires destroyed lives and property, degraded air and 
water quality, and irreparably damaged millions of acres of wildlife 
habitat. This year, more than 1.86 million acres have burned, largely 
in Texas and Oklahoma during February wildfires.\8\ Historically, the 
USFS has carried out only 2 million acres of treatments per year.\9\ At 
this disappointing rate, it would take the USFS over 30 years to treat 
the estimated 63 million acres of NFS land at risk for wildfire.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ NIFC, ``Wildfires and Acres, https://www.nifc.gov/fire-
information/statistics/wildfires.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ National Interagency Fire Center, ``National Fire News'', 
https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/nfn.
    \9\ PERC, ``Does Environmental Review Worsen the Wildfire Crisis'', 
Eric Edwards, Sara Sutherland, June 14, 2022, https://perc.org/2022/06/
14/does-environmental-review-worsen-the-wildfire-crisis/.
    \10\ Katie Hoover & Anne A. Riddle, ``Federal Wildfire Management: 
Ten-Year Funding Trends and Issues (FY2011-FY2020),'' October 28, 2020, 
CRS, R46583, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46583.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite receiving roughly $11.5 billion from the Inflation 
Reduction Act (IRA) and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), 
the USFS has failed to meaningfully ramp up the number of acres 
treated.\11\ In fact, for the second year in a row, the USFS budget 
proposes treating fewer acres than the year prior. The FY 2025 budget 
seeks $207 million for hazardous fuels reduction, consistent with the 
FY 2024 enacted amount.\12\ Although the request for funding is 
constant, the USFS treatment goal for FY 2025 is 4 million acres, or 
200,000 acres less than the previous year's target.\13\ This puts the 
agency off by roughly 2 million acres from their own estimates 
regarding how much land needs to be treated in the 10-year 
``Confronting the Wildfire Crisis'' Strategy.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ P.L. 117-58. P.L. 117-169.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ QFR Response to Chairman Westerman, April 1, 2024, on file 
with the Committee.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Even this lackluster target is likely inflated, though, as the 
budget fails to address investigative reporting that uncovered the USFS 
has overstated its treatment numbers by more than 20 percent.\15\ The 
discrepancy stems from the USFS recording multiple treatments (i.e., 
mechanical thinning, prescribed burning, chipping and piling, etc.) on 
the same acre separately as if multiple acres had been treated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ NBC News, ``The Forest Service is overstating its wildfire 
prevention progress to Congress despite decades of warning not to'', 
Adiel Kaplan, Monica Hersher, August 9, 2022, https://www.nbcnews.com/
news/investigations/forest-service-overstating-wildfire-prevention-
progress-congress-decad-rcna41576.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The House Committee on Natural Resources has advanced legislation 
to address inaccurate reporting of treated acres by USFS. H.R. 1567, 
introduced by Subcommittee on Federal Lands Chairman Tom Tiffany (R-
WI), requires the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department 
of the Interior to submit accurate reports regarding hazardous fuels 
reduction activity and implement standardized procedures for tracking 
data related to such activities. The legislation was reported by the 
Committee on Natural Resources by unanimous consent on April 28, 2023, 
and was passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 406 to 4 on 
September 13, 2023.

    Wildland Fire Management--As wildfire seasons have grown in both 
length and severity, so too have wildland fire management costs. In the 
last decade, suppression costs averaged over $3 billion per year across 
the federal land management agencies.\16\ The FY 2025 budget proposes 
$2.6 billion for Wildland Fire Management activities, an increase of 
$433 million from the FY 2024 enacted level.\17\ Unfortunately, the FY 
2025 budget proposes shifting more than half of that total--
approximately $1.3 billion designated for wildfire pre-suppression and 
suppression activities and firefighter salaries--from base 
discretionary to emergency funding.\18\ In so doing, the FY 2025 budget 
would free up base discretionary funding for pet projects of the Biden 
Administration, including the purchase of zero-emission vehicles and 
associated charging infrastructure.\19\ This budgetary gimmick would 
divert funding from necessary wildfire management activities and 
appears to be an attempted evasion of effective congressional oversight 
and responsible budgeting practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ U.S. Forest Service, ``Economic risks: Forest Service 
estimates costs of fighting wildfires in a hotter future'', Sarah 
Farmer and Jenni Moore Myers, May 14, 2024, https://www.fs.usda.gov/
features/economic-risks-forest-service-estimates-costs-fighting-
wildfires-hotter-future#::text= 
Wildfire%20suppression%20is%20costly.,than%20%243%20billion%20per%20year.

    \17\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, ``Fiscal 
Year 2025 Budget Justification'', https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/fs-fy25-congressional-budget-justification.pdf.
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id.

    Timber Targets--The USFS failed to hit its timber target in FY 2024 
by roughly 260 million board feet, selling only 3.143 billion board 
feet (BBF).\20\ Concerningly, the USFS lowered its timber target from 
3.4 BBF to 3.2 BBF for the next two years.\21\ This troubling 
trajectory for treatment and timber targets casts doubt on the USFS's 
wildfire risk reduction efforts and reflects an ongoing threat to 
sawmill infrastructure. Since 2000, over 1,500 sawmills, or roughly 
one-third of the total number of sawmills in operation at that time, 
have closed or curtailed capacity.\22\ The loss of this critically 
important infrastructure and mill capacity greatly hampers efforts to 
process hazardous fuels, thus exacerbating the wildfire crisis. A lack 
of reliable federal timber is consistently cited as a primary cause 
behind numerous mill closures in western states with large amounts of 
federal land. Just last month, in April 2024, C&D Lumber, which began 
operations in southern Oregon in 1890, announced its permanent closure, 
citing ``timber supply issues'' among other challenges, that ``have 
made it impossible for us to envision a sustainable future for the 
company.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Congressional Budget Office, ``Wildfires'', June 2022, https:/
/www.cbo.gov/publication/58212.
    \23\ KQEN News Radio, ``C&D Lumber Announces Permanent Closure'', 
April 5, 2024, https://kqennewsradio.com/2024/04/05/cd-lumber-
announces-permanent-closure/.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Without a stable supply of timber, investments in new sawmills, 
which often cost more than $100 million, make little sense for private 
industry.\24\ The FY 2025 Budget includes $43 million to support Forest 
Products, and the USFS has continued to emphasize its support to expand 
markets for through Wood Innovations grants. Last year, USFS used $48 
million to fund 104 Wood Innovations projects focused on expanding wood 
products and markets.\25\ While innovative uses for wood products are 
an important pursuit, they are not a replacement for the Forest 
Service's need to do a better job harvesting timber resources to meet 
the market's current demands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ The Advocate, ``More than half a billion investment in 
sawmills planned across Louisiana amid higher lumber prices'', Kristen 
Mosbrucker, July 26, 2021, https://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/news/
business/more-than-half-a-billion-investment-in-sawmills-planned-
across-louisiana-amid-higher-lumber-prices/article--600c8bac-ee3e-11eb-
8075-cbf03f7e098e.html.
    \25\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, ``Fiscal 
Year 2025 Budget Justification'', https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/fs-fy25-congressional-budget-justification.pdf.uyk

    Wildfire Prevention Studies--Despite heightened federal 
expenditures on suppression activities, wildfires continue to increase 
in size and severity across the U.S.\26\ Investments in wildfire 
prevention, including through scientific studies of at-risk landscapes, 
are a crucial step toward addressing the growing crisis.\27\ 
Unfortunately, the USFS FY 2025 budget request, while proposing 
significant funding increases for other budget items, misses 
opportunities to sustain needed prevention efforts. The Joint Fire 
Science Program (JFSP), for example, ``provides funding and science 
delivery for scientific studies associated with managing wildland fire, 
fuels, and fire-impacted ecosystems to respond to emerging needs of 
wildland fire and land managers, practitioners, and policymakers from 
local to national levels.'' \28\ As such, the JFSP aims to function as 
a ``primary clearinghouse'' for cutting-edge ``fire science information 
and activities throughout the nation.'' \29\ Although this program 
promises many prevention-related benefits, the USFS proposes to cut 
funding for the JFSP for FY 2025.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Jessica Blackband, ``Firefighting Workforce Benefits From FY25 
Budget Request But Sustained Investments Are Necessary To Address The 
Wildfire Crisis,'' Federation of American Scientists, April 16, 2024, 
https://fas.org/publication/fy25-wildfire-budget/.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, ``Fiscal 
Year 2025 Budget Justification'', https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/fs-fy25-congressional-budget-justification.pdf.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id.

    State, Private, and Tribal Forestry--Wildfires do not respect 
manmade boundaries, so collaboration with states, tribes, local 
communities, and other stakeholders is critical. The State, Private, 
and Tribal Forestry organization within the USFS facilitates much of 
this cross-boundary work.\31\ This organization provides resources and 
assistance to non-federal stakeholders, focusing on improving forest 
health and protecting communities from wildfires.\32\ The FY 2025 
budget decreases that account by roughly $32 million, dropping by $305 
million below FY 2024.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ U.S. Forest Service, ``State, Private, and Tribal Forestry'', 
https://www.fs.usda.gov/about-agency/state-private-forestry
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id.

    Reforestation--In addition to addressing existing wildfire threats, 
there is a clear need to restore previous landscapes damaged by 
wildfire. In the last 20 years, the United States lost an average of 7 
million acres per year to catastrophic wildfires, more than double the 
average seen during the 1990's.\34\ Many of these catastrophic 
wildfires burn so severely that natural regeneration is impossible. If 
these lands are not artificially regenerated (i.e., by planting trees), 
the lands will eventually transition from forests to shrublands. In 
total, the USFS identified a 4 million-acre reforestation backlog, 80 
percent of which is related to catastrophic wildfires.\35\ 
Unfortunately, the agency has only addressed less than 6 percent of its 
post-wildfire planting needs annually.\36\ The IIJA removed the $30 
million cap on the Reforestation Trust Fund (RTF), which receives funds 
from the collection of tariffs on certain wood-product imports to fund 
reforestation efforts on public lands.\37\ The USFS budget notes that 
collections decreased to $158 million from $261 million in FY 2024.\38\ 
The budget seeks $140 million to increase ``organizational capacity in 
nursery, genetics, and reforestation programs.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Congressional Research Service, ``Wildfire Statistics'', Katie 
Hoover, June 1, 2023, https://www.crs.gov/Reports/
IF10244?source=search&guid=b82a4d954677449b918a65ece823396f&index=0.
    \35\ U.S. Forest Service, ``Reforestation Strategy,'' July 2022, 
https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fs_media/fs_document/
Reforestation-Strategy.pdf.
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ Id.
    \38\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, ``Fiscal 
Year 2025 Budget Justification'', https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/fs-fy25-congressional-budget-justification.pdf.
    \39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even though the USFS is requesting additional money for 
reforestation, the agency's reforested acreage target is lowered in the 
FY 2025 budget. The USFS aims to complete roughly 1.8 million acres of 
reforestation over the next 10 years.\40\ Despite the considerable 
increase in funding through the RTF, this reforestation goal is a 
decrease from before the cap was removed when the agency was averaging 
reforestation on 190,000 acres annually.\41\ More needs to be done to 
address the estimated 4-million-acre reforestation backlog.\42\ 
Further, while reforestation is an important component of healthy 
forest management, failing to properly thin and manage forests and 
utilize wood products will mean that replanted trees will add fuel to 
future wildfires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ Id.
    \41\ U.S. Forest Service, ``Reforestation Strategy,'' July 2022, 
https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fs--media/fs_document/
Reforestation-Strategy.pdf.
    \42\ U.S. Forest Service, ``American Forests Partners with USDA 
Forest Service to Expand Reforestation across National Forests'', 
https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2023/12/06/american-forests-
partners-usda-forest-service-expand-reforestation.

    Wildland Firefighter Pay--The IIJA provided $600 million to 
increase the base firefighter salary by $20,000 (or 50 percent of their 
current salary, whichever is lesser).\43\ Under the IIJA, $480 million 
of this increase was for the USFS wildland firefighters, while $120 
million was for the Department of the Interior (DOI).\44\ Congress has 
extended this pay increase four times, and the current extension will 
last through the end of FY 2024.\45\ To address wildland firefighter 
pay, the USFS FY 2025 budget includes $2.6 billion for Wildland Fire 
Management Activities, a $433 million increase from the FY 2024 
level.\46\ The budget also includes $216 million for a permanent pay 
increase for wildland firefighters.\47\ An increase of $69 million is 
requested for cost of living adjustments, and $136 million to increase 
Federal firefighting capacity.\48\ Finally, this budget seeks a $10 
million investment to support health and wellbeing services for 
wildland firefighters.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, ``Update: 
Wildland firefighter pay, classification in infrastructure law'', 
https://www.fs.usda.gov/inside-fs/delivering-mission/excel/wildland-
firefighter-pay-classification-infrastructure-law.
    \44\ Id.
    \45\ U.S. Forest Service, ``March 2024 firefighter pay, series 
update'', March 25, 2024, https://www.fs.usda.gov/inside-fs/delivering-
mission/excel/firefighter-pay.
    \46\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, ``Fiscal 
Year 2025 Budget Justification'', https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/fs-fy25-congressional-budget-justification.pdf.
    \47\ Id.
    \48\ Id.
    \49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Brave wildland firefighters, who routinely put their safety and 
lives on the line to protect vulnerable communities, undoubtedly 
deserve fair compensation. Unfortunately, the USFS has consistently 
failed to transparently account for salaries and expenses, complicating 
this issue. The FY 2025 budget fails once again to identify an offset 
for any pay increases and suggests in numerous instances that the 
agency may not even have enough money to pay normal salaries. For 
example, the budget frequently states: ``The Forest Service will need 
to rely on other funding sources for Salaries and Expenses and balance 
hiring actions and attrition rates to stay within appropriations in the 
operational year.'' \50\ The budget does not provide any further 
analysis to accompany this vague statement, causing confusion about 
whether the agency may need to request supplemental funds to continue 
normal operations. This curious lack of detail compounds previous 
concerns raised by Congress that the USFS had inaccurately asserted 
wildland firefighters would face a pay cut when the agency had over 
$100 million remaining to pay firefighter salaries.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ Id. 291-37.
    \51\ Thomas Catenacci, ``Biden admin caught pushing misleading 
narrative on dire budget warnings impacting firefighters, data shows,'' 
Fox News, September 22, 2023, https://www. foxnews.com/politics/biden-
admin-caught-pushing-misleading-narrative-dire-budget-firefighters-
data.

    Old Growth and Mature Forests--In April 2022, President Biden 
issued Executive Order 14072, directing the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) and DOI to define, identify, and inventory ``mature 
and old growth forests'' on public lands and subsequently develop 
policies to protect those forests.\52\ The interagency mature and old 
growth initiative began in July 2022 with a Federal Register Notice and 
public comment period, resulting in roughly 4,000 comments and more 
than 100,000 signatures on various form letters from across the 
country.\53\ In April 2023, the USFS published an ``initial draft'' 
seeking to define and inventory ``old-growth and mature forests'' and 
even convened a ``Definition Development Team.'' \54\ Yet all these 
efforts have failed to create a single, coherent definition for ``old-
growth'' or ``mature'' forests. This is a predictable shortcoming, as 
no standard definition exists for ``old-growth forests'' and ``mature 
forests,'' and they are not terms recognized in the scientific practice 
of forestry. Despite this lack of clear definitions, the report 
identified 91 million acres of ``old-growth and mature'' forested lands 
on NFS lands, comprising 63 percent of all land managed by the 
USFS.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\ Executive Office of the President [Joseph Biden]. Executive 
Order 14072, ``Strengthening the Nation's Forests, Communities, and 
Local Economies.'' April 20, 2023. 87 F.R. 24851, https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-04-27/pdf/2022-09138.pdf.
    \53\ U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, ``Request 
for Information (RFI) on Federal Old-growth and Mature Forests'', July 
15, 2024, 87 FR 42493, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/
07/15/2022-15185/request-for-information-rfi-on-federal-old-growth-and-
mature-forests.
    \54\ U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, ``Mature 
and Old-Growth Forests: Definition, Identification, and Initial 
Inventory on Lands Managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land 
Management'', April 2023, https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/
mature-and-old-growth-forests-tech.pdf.
    \55\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Biden administration ultimately admitted that ``these 
`definitions' are considered dynamic, not static, and thus are subject 
to refinement as new information is incorporated (working 
definitions).'' \56\ Despite lacking a real definition, the 
administration released an introductory report in January that 
identified wildfire, insects, and diseases as the leading threats to 
mature and old-growth forests and even admitted that ``tree cutting'' 
is a minor threat that generally ``improved or maintained'' the stands 
that had been managed.\57\ Continuing this misguided and incomplete 
effort, the USFS published a Notice of Intent to amend all 128 national 
forest land management plans to provide direction on how to manage, 
conserve, and steward old-growth forest conditions.\58\ A draft 
Environmental Impact Statement is expected this summer, and the 
amendment process is expected to be completed in early 2025.\59\ This 
misguided effort has unquestionably diverted time and energy away from 
addressing the overwhelming wildfire crisis that is the true threat to 
forest stands of every age class. This forest plan amendment process to 
protect so-called ``old growth forests'' poses serious threats to 
forest health and multiple use management. Committee Republicans are 
continuing to fight against this unnecessary and unhelpful endeavor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\ Id.
    \57\ U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, ``Analysis 
of Threats to Mature and Old-Growth Forests on Lands Managed by the 
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, January 2024, https://
www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fs_media/fs_document/MOG-Threats-
Intro.pdf.
    \58\ U.S. Forest Service, ``Land Management Plan Direction for Old-
Growth Forest Conditions Across the National Forest System, December 
20, 2023, 88 FR 88042, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/
12/20/2023-27875/land-management-plan-direction-for-old-growth-forest-
conditions-across-the-national-forest-system.
    \59\ U.S. Forest Service, ``National Old-Growth Amendment'', 
https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/old-growth-forests/
amendment#::text=The%20National%20Old%2DGrowth%20Amendment 
,to%20rapidly%20changing%20climate%20conditions.

    30x30 Initiative and Locking Up Lands--The Biden administration 
continues to conduct orchestrated attacks on public lands, using a 
variety of tools to further the 30x30 agenda. These preservationist 
policies limit access, hurt local economies, and remove uses of public 
lands that benefit Americans. The Biden budget continues to support the 
30x30 Initiative, including through several references in the USFS 
budget.\60\ On May 6, 2021, the USDA and other federal departments 
released an ``interim'' report titled ``Conserving and Restoring 
America the Beautiful,'' which outlined a 10-year campaign to preserve 
30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030.\61\ In this report, the 
administration proposed an American Conservation and Stewardship Atlas. 
Nearly three years later, the administration finally published this 
atlas, even though the USFS has already been implementing 30x30 without 
clear goals or definitions and in whatever manner it considers 
convenient on any given day.\62\ For instance, the decision to lock-up 
roughly 16.7 million acres under roadless restrictions in the Tongass 
National Forest in Alaska has been highlighted as an advancement for 
30x30. Likewise, the misguided 225,000-acre mineral withdrawal in the 
Superior National Forest in Minnesota was touted as a win for the so-
called ``America the Beautiful Initiative.'' These measures continually 
threaten working lands, private landowners, and multiple uses of land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, ``Fiscal 
Year 2025 Budget Justification'', https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/fs-fy25-congressional-budget-justification.pdf.
    \61\ U.S. Department of the Interior, et al., ``Conserving and 
Restoring America the Beautiful,'' 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/
doi.gov/files/report-conserving-and-restoring-america-the-beautiful-
2021.pdf.
    \62\ American Conservation and Stewardship Atlas, launched April 
19, 2024, https://www.conservation.gov/pages/atlas-and-data.

    Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA)--Since the passage of the GAOA 
in 2020, the USFS received up to $285 million from the National Parks 
and Public Lands Legacy Restoration Fund (LRF) each year to address the 
deferred maintenance backlog.\63\ Despite this significant investment, 
the USFS's deferred maintenance backlog increased from $5.22 billion in 
FY 2019 to over $7.66 billion in FY 2022.\64\ While this increase is 
not as large as those experienced by agencies like the National Park 
Service, it still represents an astonishing 47 percent increase over a 
relatively short period. The FY 2025 budget requests $285 million for 
89 LRF projects. Of this amount, $33.86 million is for administrative 
and contingency funds, which will do nothing to reduce the maintenance 
backlog.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, ``FAQs-
Great American Outdoors Act'', https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/
gaoa/faqs.
    \64\ Congressional Research Service, ``Deferred Maintenance of 
Federal Land Management Agencies: FY2013-FY2022 Estimates and Issues'' 
Carol Hardy Vincent, August 8, 2023, https://crsreports.congress.gov/
product/pdf/R/R43997.
    \65\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, ``Fiscal 
Year 2025 Budget Justification'', https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/fs-fy25-congressional-budget-justification.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The FY 2025 budget request also includes $218 million for the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which covers $123.8 million for 
land acquisition and $94.2 million for the Forest Legacy Program.\66\ 
Last year, the USFS acquired over 46,000 acres of land.\67\ Despite 
this permanent and mandatory funding stream, the discretionary USFS 
budget continues to carry a specific line item for land acquisition 
above LWCF funding. Adding new acres to the federal estate for the USFS 
to manage while the agency's deferred maintenance backlog steadily 
rises will only exacerbate existing maintenance challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \66\ Id.
    \67\ Id.

    Biden Border Crisis--The Biden Border Crisis is harming USFS lands, 
primarily through the illegal cultivation of narcotics on USFS lands by 
drug cartels. The USFS reported that 5,801 illegal cannabis cultivation 
sites were detected on NFS lands during the 2011-2022 period.\68\ While 
data is limited, the USFS estimated that it had removed 381,510 pounds 
of trash, 479 miles of plastic irrigation lines, and 228 containers of 
banned and illegal pesticides from these illegal cultivation sites over 
a roughly 20-year period.\69\ This illegal cultivation also sparked 
wildfires that burned over 265,000 acres.\70\ The USFS estimated that 
illegal marijuana cultivation on National Forest System lands earns 
cartels an estimated $56 million to $91 million annually.\71\ Even the 
USFS's own budget documents acknowledge that the agency has 
historically been ``underestimating the threat of this activity on 
Federal public lands'' and only capturing a mere fraction of the 
illicit activity occurring on NFS lands.\72\ For example, the USFS used 
new technology to survey a mere four percent of three National Forests 
and found 136 cultivation sites.\73\ Of these sites, 77 had gone 
completely undetected over the previous 20 years.\74\ Despite the 
promise of this new technology, the budget does not specifically ask 
for any related increases to address President Biden's border crisis. 
In fact, the only increases related to border enforcement are for 
updated vehicles. With each officer of the USFS's Law Enforcement and 
Investigations program patrolling, on average, a sprawling 370,000 
acres of NFS lands,\75\ investments in enforcement technology and 
personnel are sorely needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \68\ Response to questions for the record submitted by Chairman 
Westerman. On file with the Committee.
    \69\ Id.
    \70\ Id.
    \71\ Id.
    \72\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, ``Fiscal 
Year 2025 Budget Justification'', https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/fs-fy25-congressional-budget-justification.pdf.
    \73\ Id. Pg. 29a-109.
    \74\ Id. Pg. 29a-109.
    \75\ Id. Pg. 29a-108.
                                     

 
 OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT'S FY 2025 BUDGET REQUEST
                      FOR THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE

                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, June 4, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                     Subcommittee on Federal Lands

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m. in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom Tiffany 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Tiffany, McClintock, Fulcher, 
Stauber, Curtis, Bentz, Westerman; Kamlager-Dove, and Leger 
Fernandez.
    Also present: Representatives LaMalfa; and Stansbury.

    Mr. Tiffany. The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will come to 
order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the 
President's Fiscal Year 2025 budget request for the U.S. Forest 
Service.
    I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be 
allowed to participate in today's hearing from the dais: the 
gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that all other 
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record 
if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

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

    Mr. Tiffany. I would like to begin by welcoming Chief Moore 
back before the Subcommittee. Chief Moore, it is good to have 
you here again. We appreciate you taking the time to answer our 
questions on your agency's Fiscal Year 2025 budget request.
    Improving the health of our nation's forests and combating 
the devastating wildfire crisis are some of the most pressing 
issues before this Committee. The scale of this challenge is 
immense and cannot be overstated. For far too long communities, 
particularly those out West, have had to bear the brunt of 
catastrophic wildfire for years with seemingly no end in sight. 
Unfortunately, the Forest Service's Fiscal Year 2025 budget 
fails to rise to meet this challenge.
    Due to reckless Democratic spending during the previous 
Congress, the Forest Service received roughly $11.5 billion in 
supplemental funding. This funding was touted as transformative 
and the only tool the agency needed to increase the pace and 
scale of forest management. Years later, it is hard to see any 
difference this funding has made on the ground.
    For the second year in a row, the Forest Service budget 
proposes treating fewer acres than the year before, with a 
target of 4 million acres treated. Based on the agency's own 
estimates, this puts the Forest Service roughly 2 million acres 
behind the goals they laid out in the 10-year wildlife crisis 
strategy.
    As we know from previous investigative reporting and 
Committee oversight, these numbers are still likely inflated 
due to Forest Service's policies of counting acres treated more 
than once. I am happy that my bipartisan ACRES Act passed the 
House last year, and I hope the Senate can consider this 
legislation quickly. However, I am still disappointed that this 
issue even requires legislation to fix.
    Chief Moore, the American people deserve transparency and 
accountability, and I would strongly encourage your agency to 
improve the quality of this data.
    Concerningly, the number of acres treated is not the only 
Forest Service target that is being missed. Last year, the 
Forest Service also fell short of its timber harvest targets by 
roughly 260 million acres. And once again, this budget has 
lowered the timber targets from 3.4 billion board feet to 3.2 
billion board feet for the next 2 years.
    [Chart.]
    Mr. Tiffany. Throughout this Congress I have often shown 
the chart behind me, which demonstrates the relationship 
between failing to harvest timber and catastrophic wildfires. 
There is a direct relationship between our continuing failure 
to harvest timber and the historically catastrophic wildfire 
years we are experiencing. It is therefore deeply troubling 
that, instead of attempting to remedy the shortcomings of 
failing to meet the agency's target this year, the Forest 
Service has apparently chosen to lower its timber target by 400 
million board feet.
    This is not walking down the right path to forest 
restoration. We have heard from our land managers, including 
Chief Moore, about the need for a paradigm shift in the way we 
manage our forests. I agree. But it continues to be abundantly 
clear that funding alone will not deliver this shift, and we 
must address the regulatory and litigation obstacles that 
continue to impede management efforts.
    This budget once again seeks more funding to do less 
management, while also failing to offer any reforms to address 
long-standing barriers to forest management. I am rightfully 
skeptical.
    While I have concerns with this proposed budget, I do 
recognize the enormous challenges facing the Forest Service, 
and hope that we can discuss ways to bring about the changes to 
see better results. There is broad agreement on the need to 
turn the tide against this wildfire crisis and restore health 
and resiliency to our ailing forests.
    We also know that we need to aggressively suppress 
wildfires threatening our communities, take care of our brave 
wildland firefighters in a fiscally responsible manner, and 
support our local forest products industry.
    I want to once again thank Chief Randy Moore for being here 
today.
    We are committed to working with you and your agency on 
these solutions, and we look forward to hearing more from you 
today.
    With that, I now yield back and recognize Ranking Member 
Kamlager-Dove for her opening statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Chair Tiffany and Chief 
Moore.
    You are back before us again in the Federal Lands 
Subcommittee, and I look forward to the conversation today. 
Your time is valuable. We know this. And as we enter this 
year's fire season, I would like to offer my sincere gratitude 
for the work that you and your agency do each and every day, 
especially for Californians and Angelenos.
    The Forest Service is charged with sustaining the health, 
diversity, and productivity of the nation's forests and 
grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. 
That is no small task, as the nation's forests and grasslands 
make up 193 million acres nationwide. And last month was the 
hottest May on record and the 12th consecutive month to claim 
that title. Let me repeat that: 12 straight months of record 
highs. A full calendar of record busting temperatures, and not 
just in the House Oversight Committee. This is unprecedented, 
and should be indisputable affirmation that climate change is 
affecting our public lands.
    Such drastic climate changes make the work of the Forest 
Service ever more complex and essential as fire seasons rage 
longer, drought intensifies, and our forests face considerable 
resiliency obstacles. So, it would make sense to me that we 
would be aiming to meet the Forest Service's budget requests, 
fully fund their vital mitigation and response accounts, 
amplify the innovative work being done to modernize forest 
products, and ensure that the agency has significant support 
for staffing and capacity challenges. After all, that is how 
you help government work.
    Unfortunately, we have continued to see a cycle of chronic 
and unsustainable underfunding for the agency, underfunding and 
then blame gaming. In fact, just a few months ago the Chief 
warned us that lower appropriated funds, required cost-of-
living adjustments, and inflated costs of operation are leading 
to funding gaps in salaries and other internal services among 
the Forest Service. We must listen to our agency leaders when 
they express such significant concerns.
    Democrats delivered with monumental investments from the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, 
which have certainly helped. I know that the firefighter pay 
increase from the infrastructure law has been an important 
hiring and retention tool for the Forest Service, and I am 
pleased to see $216 million in the Fiscal Year 2025 budget to 
continue this initiative, one which we must make permanent.
    Despite the gains from these investments, the Forest 
Service still faces vacancies in fire-related positions and 
general staffing gaps in non-fire positions. Such gaps directly 
tie to project delays and management challenges across the 
agency that my Republican counterparts often attribute to the 
legal burdens of environmental review.
    However, we know that reviewing, permitting, and project 
management activities require staff capacity more than anything 
to execute the tools we have already granted the Forest 
Service, tools such as the 12 new authorities Congress has 
passed in the last 10 years meant to reduce the permitting 
process or the role of judicial review in the project approval 
proposal.
    The Forest Service doesn't need new authority or additional 
waivers of our bedrock environmental laws. It needs sustainable 
funding and additional staff capacity. It is promising to see a 
prioritization from the Biden administration to address 
staffing challenges across the agency to support a growing 
demand for outdoor recreation, restoration projects aimed at 
adapting to a changing climate, protection of cultural 
resources, and providing clean water resources nationwide.
    Chief Moore, I look forward to hearing from you and 
listening to our discussion today. I hope that my colleagues 
and I can work together to support a beneficial and strong 
Forest Service budget for Fiscal Year 2025.
    With that, I yield back.

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative Kamlager-Dove. Now, 
I am going to recognize the Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. 
Westerman, if he is ready for his opening statement.
    Sir, are you prepared?
    Mr. Westerman. Always prepared, Mr. Chairman.
    [Laughter.]

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chief Moore, thank you for being here today. It has been 
good to work with you and visit with you and to understand the 
challenges that forestry and America face, and I know you are 
on the front lines of that. It is something I am very 
passionate about. But as we look at the budget request from 
this year and we see the increase, I think you can understand 
why we have some heartburn when you look at the history of the 
funding that we have sent to the Forest Service.
    When I first came to Congress, the big issue was fire 
funding. And we did the fire funding fix. And then we did the 
Great American Outdoors Act, and included the Forest Service in 
the Great American Outdoors Act. There was the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law of 2021 that gave more money to the Forest 
Service. I did not vote for that one. I did not vote for the 
Inflation Reduction Act. But all of those bills put more 
funding into the Forest Service. And it doesn't appear that 
anything is getting better with the health of our forests 
across the country.
    And I know you face a lot of challenges, and a lot of that 
is because of Congress, and because we have failed to give you 
the tools and the authorities to be able to go in and do the 
work that you need to do. And we are in a situation now that 
you and I have discussed, where it is kind of a triage mode. 
There are a limited number of resources, there are a limited 
number of people who can do management. And the areas that seem 
most critical to protect are those wildland-urban interfaces, 
their transportation corridors, transmission corridors, 
watersheds.
    And it is almost like, I will use the term ``the troops,'' 
that are out there to manage the forests are retreating back to 
these areas and trying to create the last defense against 
catastrophic wildfire, and this is something that has come 
about because of years of not being able to manage the rest of 
the forests. And we know that to be able to manage forests, we 
have to have markets for the products.
    Mr. McClintock has had success in passing legislation that 
has been very beneficial down around South Lake Tahoe in doing 
management that has stopped wildfire, yet there are hardly any 
markets for those products that come off, and it ends up 
costing the taxpayer a thousand to a couple thousand dollars an 
acre to be able to go in and manage the forests simply because 
the mill infrastructure is not there that was once available. 
And we have seen that in many places in the West.
    And being from Arkansas, where we have a vibrant forest 
products economy, and I know you are from Louisiana, where they 
have the same, my constituents probably don't understand, nor 
should they have to understand why we have to spend Federal 
dollars to be able to do management on the forests. That is a 
foreign concept because, usually, when you do management on the 
forests, it generates revenue to not only pay for itself but to 
go back into the landowners' pockets, which in this case is the 
Treasury and the taxpayer.
    And there was one time in the history of this country where 
the Forest Service actually put more money back into the 
Treasury than it cost to run the Forest Service. We are not 
anywhere remotely even close to that anymore, and we are seeing 
the levels of fire danger increase. We are seeing the amount of 
land that is subject to catastrophic wildfire increase. We are 
seeing more mills close, and the train is going in the wrong 
direction.
    I know that you know this, I know this, and we ought to be 
able to work together to figure out how to turn the train 
around and make America's forests all that they should be. I 
look forward to hearing your testimony and to having a dialogue 
about how we can work together to use the resources that we 
have to create a better situation for America's forests, which 
means creating a better situation for America's wildlife, for 
America's air quality, for America's water quality, and all the 
other benefits that go with a healthy forest.
    With that, I yield back.

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Chairman Westerman. We will now 
move on to witness testimony.
    Let me remind the witness that under Committee Rules, you 
must limit your oral statement to 5 minutes, but your entire 
statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, please press the ``on'' button on 
the microphone. We use timing lights. When you begin, the light 
will turn green. At the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn 
red.
    I would like to introduce Mr. Randy Moore, Chief of the 
U.S. Forest Service.
    Chief Moore, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

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

    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Chair Tiffany, Ranking Member 
Kamlager-Dove, and the members of the Subcommittee. Thank you 
for inviting me to testify today. We are grateful for your 
continued support.
    The President's budget names three primary goals for us: to 
modernize wildland fire management, to sustain investments 
critical to our mission, and to ensure equitable access and 
benefits to Americans. Today, I will share our progress as we 
put money to work to confront serious challenges. I will share 
how our work will continue to be a sound investment.
    We directly steward about 193 million acres of National 
Forest System lands. We reach across boundaries to assist 
states, tribes, communities, and private landowners to keep 
millions more acres of healthy forests productive. Every 
American benefits from these forests, directly or indirectly. 
Together these lands provide basic needs for life, clean air 
and water, while they contribute to energy production and 
support local economies. National forests alone contribute more 
than 410,000 jobs and $44.3 billion to the gross domestic 
product.
    To sustain productivity and health, forests must be able to 
withstand threats posed by wildfire, climate change, drought, 
insects, and disease, and on and on. We invested resources to 
act and ensure that they do just that. Foremost, we prioritize 
work to reduce wildfire risk, safeguard communities, and create 
resilient forests.
    In 2022, we launched a 10-year Wildfire Crisis Strategy and 
we moved to implement it. Annual appropriations, coupled with 
the historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation 
Reduction Act, provided an extraordinary opportunity to take 
bold and strategic actions. We did just that. We progressed to 
deliver on a promise to increase the pace and scale of our 
treatments. We are not just treating any acre, we are treating 
the right acres in the right places and at the right scale. We 
focused initial efforts on 21 priority landscapes within 
Western firesheds at the highest risk. They account for roughly 
80 percent of wildfire risk.
    These investments are paying dividends. Experts reported 
roughly $700 billion worth of housing and infrastructure are at 
risk within these priority landscapes. This includes $6.5 
billion of municipal watersheds which supply drinking water to 
12 million people. In the last 2 years, we reduced the average 
wildfire risk to these assets by 8 percent for infrastructure, 
8 percent for housing, and 12 percent for watersheds. That 
means that we protected more than $300 million worth of homes 
at risk.
    In the Stanislaus National Forest, for example, 17 
communities are at lower risk, including towns of Cold Springs 
and Strawberry. A million socially vulnerable people are at 
less risk. Nearly half of national forest lands and priority 
landscapes are now considered unlikely to burn at high 
intensity. We must remain on course and build on these gains.
    We recognize the urgency of investing in a permanent and a 
comprehensive pay increase to provide a more livable wage, 
enhance recruitment, and stabilize retention. We must also 
improve housing conditions and provide better care for our 
firefighters' physical and mental health. We look forward to 
seeing an end to reports of firefighters living in cars with 
few benefits and limited mental health care.
    In addition to work to address the wildfire crisis and 
firefighters, we continue to take action that supports access 
and benefits from forests. Visitor use, hunting and fishing, 
energy and minerals development, forest products, and livestock 
grazing generate 69 percent of the contributions to the 
economy.
    Thanks to the Great American Outdoors Act funds, we 
relieved some of the pressures from the $8.6 billion of backlog 
that we have. The budget requests $58 million to maintain 
critical recreation services, with a focus on offering 
welcoming and equitable opportunities.
    We are also making a difference in our urban environments. 
The Forest Service and partners are planting and maintaining 
trees in cities and areas where 84 percent of Americans live. 
Trees combat extreme heat and climate change, and they also 
improve access to nature.
    The 2025 budget returns basic funding to most programs. 
This includes forest products, which are vital to sustaining 
rural communities. This includes sustainable timber supply. We 
know it is a critical component and is part of a complex, 
market-driven system. And while we don't control markets, we 
can support industry through forest products and wood 
innovations which help mills adapt and modernize. And while the 
current industry adapts, the agency has taken strides to 
support the existing industry by investing nearly $80 million 
over the last 3 years in directly supporting sawmills and other 
forest products manufacturing facilities.
    We have also expanded the wood basket for mills through the 
build and timber transport program, and authorized extensions 
to timber sale contracts to provide relief from the decline in 
the demand for paper products.

    In closing, we are fully committed to meeting the 
challenges before us with the resources Congress provided. The 
people of America deserve nothing less than to see their money 
put to work to benefit all. Thank you, and I welcome your 
comments.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Randy Moore, Chief, USDA Forest Service

    Chair Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today to testify on the 
President's fiscal year (FY) 2025 Budget request for the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service.
    The fiscal year 2025 President's Budget for the USDA Forest Service 
discretionary appropriations totals $6.5 billion for base programs and 
$2.4 billion for the wildfire suppression cap adjustment (through the 
Wildfire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund). The fiscal year 2025 
Budget focuses on three primary areas: modernizing the wildland fire 
management workforce; sustaining the foundational investments critical 
to the mission of the Forest Service; and ensuring equitable access to 
and benefits from the National Forest System.
    America's forests provide timber, clean air and water, forage, and 
energy production. They support local economies through employment, 
trade, recreation, tourism, green jobs, and livestock grazing. They 
host and protect sites and landscapes of high cultural, spiritual, or 
recreational value. These benefits are at risk from wildfires, pests, 
diseases, invasive species, and drought, all of which are exacerbated 
by climate change. It is vital to continue to act now to mitigate these 
threats and protect our resources. Alongside our partners, the Forest 
Service will continue to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires to 
communities in FY 2025 through investments in the wildland fire 
management workforce and throughout the high-priority landscapes 
identified within the agency's 10-year Wildfire Crisis Strategy. The 
investments highlighted below reflect services the Forest Service 
delivers through work on National Forests, partnerships with State, 
Private, and Tribal landowners, and our Research and Development 
mission area. These investments enable the Forest Service to restore 
long-term forest health and resiliency across landscapes the American 
people rely on while ensuring equitable access to the resources on 
National Forest System lands.
    Recent analysis shows that in FY 2022, Forest Service programs and 
work contributed approximately 410,400 jobs (average of annual full-
time, part-time, temporary, and seasonal) and $44.3 billion in Gross 
Domestic Product (GDP). Recreational visitor use, hunting and fishing, 
energy and minerals development, forest products, and livestock grazing 
generated 69 percent of the economic activity. The Forest Service 
continues to be a good place to invest and will maximize every dollar 
invested into our agency, making every dollar work for the American 
people. The citizens we serve deserve nothing less than to see the 
value of their money at work for their benefit.
The President's FY 2025 Budget Request for Specific Priorities

    The following investments align with and enhance the agency's 
efforts to modernize and invest in our wildland fire management 
workforce:

     The 2025 Budget proposes $2.6 billion for base Wildland 
            Fire Management activities, investing in firefighter 
            compensation, benefits, mental health, and wellbeing, and 
            supporting the objectives of the agency's 10-year Wildfire 
            Crisis Strategy.

          o  Provides $216 million to implement a permanent, 
        comprehensive pay increase for the wildland firefighter 
        workforce, providing a more equitable wage, enhancing 
        recruitment, and stabilizing retention.

          o  $136 million for additional federal firefighting capacity 
        (570 more permanent firefighters and continued transition to a 
        more full-time workforce) to enable the Forest Service to more 
        effectively meet the demands of the increasingly year-round 
        wildfire season, while improving the work-life balance of 
        firefighters and support personnel.

          o  $10 million for mental health and well-being assistance to 
        ensure our wildfire firefighter workforce are supported in 
        managing the mental and physical aspects of their mission.

     In addition, the Budget proposes $25 million to address 
            the urgent need for suitable employee housing through 
            necessary maintenance and repairs of Forest Service housing 
            units.
    The 2025 Budget proposes to fund the National Forest System at $2 
billion, prioritizing recreation service delivery, climate smart land 
management, forest products, law enforcement, and the Collaborative 
Forest Landscape Restoration Program, while maintaining foundational 
hazardous fuels treatments to reduce wildfire risk:

     $207 million for Hazardous Fuels Reduction: to return to 
            previously enacted program levels and mitigate wildfire 
            risk on 4.0 million acres with a focus on high-priority and 
            high-risk firesheds, building on hazardous fuels funding 
            from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation 
            Reduction Act, and in aligning with the agency's 10-Year 
            Wildfire Crisis Strategy.

     $58 million for Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness: to 
            provide critical recreation operations, planning, services, 
            and improvements, with particular emphasis on creating 
            welcoming, sustainable, and equitable recreation 
            opportunities for all Americans with a focus toward 
            underserved and Tribal communities.

     $41 million for Forest Products: to support the 
            foundational funding needed to maintain the Forest 
            Service's ability to sell timber, which can be a critical 
            component to sustaining local rural communities.

     $33 million for Vegetation and Watershed Management: to 
            provide support for healthy and resilient watersheds and 
            landscapes, sustain the production of clean and abundant 
            air and water, assist with meeting the Administration's 
            climate goals, and contribute to healthy and productive 
            communities and Tribal Nations.

     $34 million for Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 
            Program: to invest in communities and regions with a 
            collaborative, common purpose in reducing wildfire risk and 
            improving forest health and resiliency.

     $21 million for Law Enforcement Operations: to provide 
            critical law enforcement response for the prevention, 
            detection, and criminal investigation of violations of 
            Federal laws and regulations for the protection of visitors 
            to National Forest System lands, Forest Service employees, 
            and natural and cultural resources.

     $1.5 billion for National Forest System Salaries and 
            Expenses: to maintain the workforce needed to support the 
            agency programs critical for forest health and resiliency, 
            which complement the 10-Year Wildfire Crisis Strategy.

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

     $470 million for Information Technology Capabilities: 
            continue modernization of our Information Technology 
            systems that allow the public to better access our 
            services, sustain emergency communication systems, and 
            provide our workforce the tools they need to carry out our 
            conservation mission.

     $316 million for Forest and Rangeland Research: continue 
            investments in research priorities, with a focus on climate 
            change-related research including reforestation, carbon 
            accounting, and fire and fuels research.

    These investments continue to build on the historic investments 
provided by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) (P.L. 117-58) and 
the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) (P.L. 117-169). The Forest Service 
will continue to strengthen our long-standing work and relationships 
with States, Tribes, local communities, private landowners, and other 
stakeholders to adapt lessons learned into a coordinated and effective 
program of work to improve the resiliency of landscapes and watersheds, 
reduce wildfire risk, protect and maintain infrastructure, support 
outdoor recreation, establish tree canopy in nature-deprived 
communities, and invest in the reforestation of America's impacted 
landscapes.
    The Forest Service cannot succeed in this work alone, especially 
when addressing the firesheds highest at risk, which are typically in 
multiple ownerships. Through meaningful communication, expanded 
partnerships, and broader community support, the Forest Service will 
increase the use of prescribed fire and other fuel treatments and the 
management of unplanned ignitions to reduce long-term wildfire risks. 
Fortunately, we have decades of experience working through partnerships 
and collaboration based on common values and shared goals across shared 
landscapes as set out over 20 years ago in the National Cohesive 
Wildland Fire Management Strategy.
Ensuring Equitable Access to and Benefits from the National Forest 
        System

    The Forest Service remains unwavering in its commitment to the 
values of equity, inclusion, and equal opportunities for its employees 
and the public it serves. The Forest Service maintains the intent to 
focus on prioritizing activities that will provide benefits to 
disadvantaged or underserved communities. The Forest Service vows to 
proactively engage in actions that ensure a safe, resilient, and 
harassment-free work culture where employees are treated with respect 
and dignity.
    The Forest Service will continue to invest in actions that 
facilitate access to the vital resources our forests and grasslands 
provide. This effort is twofold. First, we must ensure that those who 
rely on these services and benefits can access those benefits safely. 
Therefore, we are committed to improving the operation and maintenance 
of our extensive infrastructure portfolio that includes buildings, 
dams, communication sites, recreation sites, roads, trails, and 
bridges. Second, to carry out this work effectively, the Forest Service 
is committed to continued intentional internal and external engagement 
with Tribal Nations and communities that live by, visit, and depend on 
national forests. The Forest Service is committed to identifying and 
removing barriers to access Forest Service programs and services for 
historically underserved communities. This will be done by integrating 
equity-centered criteria in the design, funding, and prioritization of 
all policies, programs, and activities to center equity considerations 
as part of the decision process. The Forest Service will also work to 
remove barriers and boost economic opportunities through improved 
access to contracts, grants and agreements, and permits.
Leveraging Additional Funding Authorities

    It is expected that by FY 2025, much of the funding from the IRA 
will have been invested, but along with the tools and investments 
proposed in the FY2025 Presidents Budget, the Forest Service will 
continue to leverage funding within the BIL to combat climate change 
and confront the wildfire crisis, create new markets and technology for 
wood products, and restore forest health and resiliency through 
partnerships and collaboration across landscapes.
    The BIL provided $1.4 billion for hazardous fuels treatments, while 
the Inflation Reduction Act provided an additional $1.8 billion for 
hazardous fuels work within the wildland urban interface. In February, 
we announced $500 million for FY 2024 to expand work on the Forest 
Service's strategy to reduce the risk to communities, critical 
infrastructure and forests from the nation's growing wildfire crisis. 
From 2022-2024, we have invested a combined $1.6 billion in the 21 
high-priority landscapes identified under the agency's 10-Year Wildfire 
Crisis Strategy as we continue moving these landscapes toward a 
maintenance state. These investments will help reduce the risk of 
wildfire to communities, Tribal lands, ecosystems, and critical 
infrastructure, including utility corridors and public water sources. 
Our work under the 10-Year Wildfire Crisis Strategy provides many 
values the public depends on and cares about including beginning to 
reduce risk to approximately 550 communities, of which 475 are 
underserved; 2,500 miles of power lines; and 1,800 municipal 
watersheds.
    Through Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA) (P.L. 116-152) funding, 
the Forest Service continues to repair and upgrade vital infrastructure 
and facilities in the national forests and grasslands through the 
National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund (GAOA-LRF). In 
both FY 2024 and 2025, increased emphasis was given to using GAOA-LRF 
funding to address deferred maintenance on Forest Service-owned housing 
units as one step toward helping our employees confront the housing 
availability and affordability crisis in this country. In addition to 
the $40 million Congress approved in FY 2024, we are proposing another 
$30 million in housing-related GAOA-LRF projects to address this 
critical need. It is estimated that in FY 2025, GAOA-LRF projects at FS 
will contribute 3,200 jobs and $360 million in GDP.
    In closing, the President's FY 2025 Budget request for the Forest 
Service proposes a landmark investment that reflects the 
Administration's ongoing commitment to building and sustaining a robust 
and resilient Federal wildland fire management workforce, maintains 
funding priorities for risk-based wildfire reduction, and improves 
overall access to and utilization of our National Forests System. The 
FY 2025 Budget request also highlights the importance of restoring and 
creating resilient landscapes, improving infrastructure, and removing 
barriers to access. We look forward to working with this Subcommittee 
to fulfill the President's goals and our key responsibilities for the 
long-term benefit of the Nation's forests and grasslands, and for all 
Americans. I will be glad to answer your questions.

                                 ______
                                 
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Randy Moore, Chief, 
                          U.S. Forest Service

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

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. During the hearing, Representative Stauber asked about 
a ``temporary'' cap on backcountry permits in the Boundary Waters Canoe 
Area. In response, you said: ``So we are currently working with the 
local community to do just what you described. To date we have not made 
a lot of progress, but I would be willing to get back with you by the 
week's end to give you more specifics on what we have been able to do 
within the community.''

    1a) Did you get back with Representative Stauber by week's end?

    1b) If not, why not?

    1c) Will you commit to lifting the ``temporary'' cap on backcountry 
permits in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area?

    1d) What progress has the Forest Service made in reopening our 
national forests and ensuring we return to pre-pandemic levels of 
access?

    Question 2. This committee has deep concerns with the Biden 
administration's disproportionate focus on protecting so-called ``old-
growth'' and ``mature'' forests, not least because it diverts agency 
efforts from addressing the wildfire crisis and because such terms are 
poorly defined. Yet the Forest Service recently published a Notice of 
Intent to amend all 128 national forest land management plans to 
provide direction on how to manage, conserve, and steward ``old-
growth'' forest conditions.

    2a) In general, how long have forest plan revisions taken to 
complete in the last 5 years?

    2b) How long is the process of amending all 128 forest plans 
expected to take?

    2c) Please provide an estimate of the total hours that the Forest 
Service's staff has already spent and plans to continue spending on 
this ``old-growth'' amendment process.

    2d) Absent this focus on ``old-growth,'' would Forest Service staff 
have more time to spend working on wildfire risk-reduction and NEPA-
compliant forest management projects?

    Question 3. In January 2024, the Forest Service and the Bureau of 
Land Management (BLM) released an introductory report that identified 
wildfire, insects, and diseases as the leading threats to ``mature and 
old-growth'' forests and even admitted that ``tree cutting'' is a minor 
threat that generally ``improved or maintained'' the stands that had 
been managed. Given these findings, should the Forest Service instead 
focus on expanding its forest treatment efforts?

    Question 4. The 2012 Planning Rule consciously chose to leave old 
growth issues to the individual plan development process, rather than 
promulgating national standards or guidelines for old growth.

    4a) What changed between the adoption of the 2012 Planning Rule and 
April of 2021 when President Biden signed the Executive Order on Old 
Growth that made a single national approach the correct one?

    4b) You were regional forester in Region 9 when this took place. Do 
you believe the Forest plans adopted in Region 9 when you were regional 
forester were adequately or inadequately protective of old growth?

    4c) Can you provide the committee with information regarding 
whether old growth has increased or decreased in the region since 2009 
when the forest plans were last revised?

    Question 5. You mentioned that there is a large amount of timber 
under contract that has not yet been cut. Can you please provide the 
committee with the following information:

    5a) The volume under contract for as many previous fiscal years as 
possible, but at least the last 10 years.

    5b) The type of timber under contract--sawtimber, pulpwood, 
biomass, other convertible, etc.

    5c) The volume of timber under contract but either under injunction 
or withdrawn due to litigation, by Forest Service region.

    Question 6. Can you provide the committee with a breakdown of the 
amount of volume under litigation by Forest Service Region?

    Question 7. Chief Moore, during the hearing, there were several 
discrepancies regarding the amount of timber sold by the Forest Service 
in recent years. Please provide the amount sold annually, in billion 
board feet (BBF), by the Forest Service for the past 10 fiscal years.

    Question 8. Does the Forest Service count personal use firewood as 
a timber accomplishment? If yes, has this always been the case?

    Question 9. How much has personal use firewood contributed to 
timber outputs during the past four years?

    Question 10. How many fuel breaks have been established under the 
categorical exclusion that was created by the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act?

    10a) Where are these fuel breaks located?

    10b) How many total acres do they cover?

    10c) Did the Forest Service use commercial timber harvest to 
establish any of these fuel breaks? If so, please identify them.

    Question 11. The committee has learned that of roughly 55 wood 
product facility closures in the last several years, 21 of them were in 
close proximity to the National Forest System.

    11a) Do you believe that the Forest Service should be striving to 
keep these facilities operating, so that they can help provide a market 
for wood products on the National Forest System?

    11b) If so, what is the agency doing to prevent future closures of 
wood products facilities?

    Question 12. Across the country, timber mills are shutting down or 
significantly curtailing operations due to a lack of reliable timber 
supply. Congress has tried to assist by giving your agency tools like 
20-year stewardship contracting authority, but the Forest Service has 
failed to fully utilize that tool. Given that your agency is planning 
to reduce timber harvesting levels, what concrete steps can the Forest 
Service take to sustain and expand forest products infrastructure?

    Question 13. During questioning from Representative Pete Stauber, 
you said that the Forest Service would have met its Fiscal Year (FY) 
2023 timber-harvesting goal ``but for litigation.''

    13a) Please provide a list of all litigation that prevented the 
Forest Service from reaching this target.

    13b) Please provide an estimate of the amount of timber, in BBF, 
that each lawsuit or settlement cited above prevented from being 
harvested in FY 2023.

    Question 14. The Forest Service has lowered its timber-harvesting 
goal from 3.4 BBF in FY 2023 to 3.2 BBF for both FY 2024 and FY 2025.

    14a) Is the Forest Service currently on track to meet this reduced 
goal for FY 2024? If not, why not?

    14b) Did the Forest Service lower these goals at least partially as 
a response to ongoing or anticipated litigation?

    14c) If so, please provide a list of all litigation that influenced 
this determination.

    Question 15. The partial fix to the Cottonwood decision expired in 
March 2023. Please describe the effects that the Cottonwood decision, 
and litigation generally, continue to have on the Forest Service's 
ability to actively manage our nation's forests.
    Question 16. Road access is especially important in those U.S. 
Forest Service lands that are located near and along the U.S.-Mexico 
border. A few years ago, I toured the Coronado National Forest in 
Arizona with CBP officials who stated that the inability to build 
proper access roads diminished agent mobility and reduced the 
effectiveness of border enforcement measures. This, in turn, poses 
dangers to officer safety when they must engage in the pursuit or 
apprehension of suspected perpetrators.

    16a) Will you commit to supporting the construction of more roads 
on Forest Service lands along the southern border to protect our law 
enforcement officers and increase operational control of the border?

    16b) Have you had any discussions with Homeland Security Secretary 
Alejandro Mayorkas--or any top Homeland Security officials--about how 
to address these challenges?

    Question 17. President Biden's open-border policy has contributed 
to increased drug trafficking and cultivation on federal lands. The 
Forest Service recently detected more than 5,800 illegal cannabis 
cultivation sites within our national forests. Since illegal 
cultivation activities have sparked massive wildfires, their growing 
presence on national forest lands remains a serious concern. In fact, 
in this year's budget request, the Forest Service admits that it has 
``likely underestimat[ed] the threat of [marijuana cultivation] 
activity on Federal public lands.''

    17a) What concrete steps is the Forest Service taking to reduce 
illegal drug production in national forests?

    17b) This year's budget request explains that when the Forest 
Service recently used new technology to survey a mere 4 percent of only 
3 national forests, it found 77 illegal drug cartel cultivation sites 
that had gone undetected for 20 years. Given that this alarming figure 
pertains to just a fraction of our national forests, does the Forest 
Service plan to expand this kind of surveillance?

    Question 18. The Forest Service budget requested decreased funding 
for the Joint Fire Science Program, which funds scientific studies on 
managing wildland fires. Why is this program being cut, while other 
budget items that are wholly unrelated to forest health are receiving 
increases?

    Question 19. How many miles of road has the Forest Service 
decommissioned per year from FY 2004 to FY 2024? Please break down the 
annual figures by state, region, or both.

    Question 20. How many miles of road will the Forest Service 
decommission pursuant to the FY 2025 budget? Please break down this 
figure by state, region, or both.

    Question 21. In response to Chairman Tiffany's question, ``What is 
a green job?'' you replied that a green job is a job that involves 
``working with the environment to keep it healthy and resilient.''

    21a) Earlier in the hearing, you stated that timber harvesting is 
``necessary'' for effective forest management and reducing wildfire 
risk. By this logic, should timber-harvesting jobs qualify as ``green 
jobs''?

    21b) If not, why not?

    Question 22. The Forest Service has reduced its forest treatment 
goal for this year to just 4 million acres, which--by the agency's own 
estimates--is inadequate for confronting the nation's current wildfire 
risk. I'm concerned that the Forest Service is now shifting the 
goalposts to ``outcome-based'' metrics when, just a few short years 
ago, your agency--not Congress--set acreage-based targets. The Forest 
Service has also received $11.5 billion in taxpayer funding to achieve 
this goal of treating 20 million acres in 10 years.

    22a) How are we supposed to hold the agency accountable if we're 
not measuring progress based on acres treated?

    22b) How is this change in metrics consistent with the 10-year 
Wildfire Strategy?

    Question 23. Wildfires do not respect administrative boundaries, 
which is why collaboration with states, Tribes, and other stakeholders 
is crucial for fire prevention. Within the Forest Service, the State, 
Private and Tribal Forestry organization is tasked with facilitating 
much of this needed cross-boundary work. The FY 2025 budget, however, 
decreases funding for that account by roughly $32 million.

    The Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission's most 
recent report found that federal agencies must do more to engage tribes 
in meaningful co-management agreements. So, why is this funding being 
reduced?

    Question 24. President Biden's 30x30 Initiative is often described 
as a campaign to conserve 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030. 
Critically, however, the administration has failed to make clear what 
counts as conservation. For example, on the newly created 
conservation.gov, the administration lists most National Forest System 
land as not contributing, or only pending additions, to the national 
conservation goals.

    24a) Does the Forest Service share the view, apparently held by the 
Biden administration, that most of the National Forest System lands are 
insufficiently conserved?

        i) If so, please explain why.

        ii) If not, please explain why not.

    Question 25. There is broad international and domestic consensus 
about the carbon benefits of using more wood products in construction. 
In fact, at the December 2023 COP 28 summit in Dubai, the U.S. and 16 
other countries agreed to increase sustainable forestry and the use of 
wood products in construction as ``a vital decarbonization strategy.'' 
However, the U.S. currently imports about one third of its lumber. The 
Forest Service manages about 188 million acres of national forests, 
including some of the most productive forests in the world, but 
provides very little of our demand for lumber and other wood products.

    Do you believe that the Forest Service has a responsibility to 
sustainably manage a portion of its lands in a manner that meets some 
of our need for carbon friendly wood products?

    Question 26. The Forest Service provides several important reports 
for tracking the agency's timber sale program and harvest trends, 
including the ``Forest Products Cut and Sold report,'' ``Periodic 
Timber Sale Accomplishment Reports,'' and ``Harvest Trends on National 
Forest System Lands.'' The most recent data available in the ``Harvest 
Trends on National Forest System Lands'' report is from 2021.

    Please provide an updated version of this report and make this 
updated report available to the public on the Forest Service website.

             Questions Submitted by Representative Fulcher

    Just recently the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency 
(CISA) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) forecasted a very 
high risk for wildfires in the West this year. Low precipitation 
combined with a high fuel mix creates a challenging problem for rural 
communities and the electric utilities that serve them. Electric 
cooperatives in my state are doing everything within their power to 
mitigate wildfire risk but extreme weather conditions remain an 
uncertainty and are ultimately hard to plan for because of the 
unknowns. These utilities are not for profit and all additional costs 
are borne by their customers.

    Unfortunately, I understand the USFS is looking to charge utilities 
with power line corridors through their lands nearly $3 million per 
fire incident for strict liability damages. Smaller, rural electric 
cooperatives and the communities they serve cannot bear this level of 
damages. Already these utilities are finding it difficult to obtain 
wildfire insurance. This level of damage would bankrupt these 
utilities. I'm curious about your authority to unilaterally increase 
strict liability damages for powerline corridors.

    Question 1. Could you confirm that this is accurate, and if so, 
will you work with my office to collaborate with utilities on this 
matter?

    Question 2. Under what authority can the USFS charge strict 
liability damages and how does the agency justify this one-size-fits 
all level of damages?

             Questions Submitted by Representative Stauber

    Question 1. Please provide an estimate of the number of acres of 
National Forests within the state of Minnesota would be covered by the 
old growth plan amendment, and specifically the number of acres that 
are needed to satisfy the requirements laid out in the Service's Notice 
of Intent (NOI) to provide for ``connectivity, ``recruitment,'' and 
``adjacency'' in old growth management.

    Question 2. As you state during the hearing, prescribed fires are 
only one of the many critical tools used to prevent catastrophic fire 
on our nation's public and private lands. Last May, the EPA finalized a 
new ambient air quantity standard for fine particulate matter, 
otherwise known as PM2.5 NAAQS.

    2a) Can the Committee assume that the recent PM 2.5 NAAQS ruling 
will have zero impact on federal, state, and private land managers' 
ability to utilize controlled burns to safely manage our nation's 
forests?

    2b) As states develop implementation plans to meet EPA's new 
standard, how will USDA and EPA work collaboratively to ensure that the 
states implementing the new standard do not remove this critical fire 
prevention tool?

    2c) Further, because fire doesn't know boundaries between federal 
and private lands and since private lands represent approximately 70% 
of total working forest acres, how is USDA working to ensure that all 
forests retain this critical management tool?

    2d) Is the agency concerned about the impact the PM 2.55 NAAQS 
ruling will have on the future success of wood products market 
development, and if so, how is the Agency working to ensure that rural 
economic health and public health can be achieved cooperatively?

    Question 3. The inflation reduction act (IRA) directed the General 
Services Administration (GSA) to acquire and install materials that 
have substantially lower levels of embodied greenhouse gas emissions, 
as determined by the EPA. In response, EPA developed a low embodied 
pilot program and interim determination that prioritized concrete, 
glass, asphalt, and steel as qualifying for the allocated IRA funding. 
Products with lower embodied carbon, including bio-based materials, 
were segregated into a separate category for ``further exploration,'' 
and tasked among others, USFS for developing guidance to support the 
purchase of bio-based materials, including wood products.

    3a) Your agency continues to invest in wood products through 
programs like the Wood Innovation Grant Program and the Community Wood 
Facility Grant Program. What steps has USFS taken to develop guidance 
per EPA's request?

    Question 4. One of the most effective ways to reduce embodied 
carbon in buildings is to build with wood products. Structural wood 
products do not require the same energy intensive manufacturing process 
that is common for other building materials. Additionally, wood 
products are unique in the fact that they store carbon--these materials 
are approximately 50% carbon by dry weight.

    4a) Given this, why has this administration chosen to prioritize 
concrete, glass, asphalt, and steel?

    4b) Given USFS's investment into wood products, has your agency 
made any effort to ensure that wood products included in administration 
policies which purport to lower carbon?

    Question 5. On March 9, 2023, the Forest Service proposed changes 
to its cost recovery regulations pertaining to Land Uses; Special Uses; 
Strict Liability Limit and Insurance. The agency proposed dramatically 
raising cost recovery fees for special use permits in the first four 
categories of cost recovery, eliminating the current 50-hour exemption 
for outdoor recreation permits. The 50-hour exemption was first 
implemented in 2006 in the final cost recovery rule to lessen the 
impact on small entities. The proposed rule increases cost recovery 
fees starting at $255 for less than 8 hours of work and up to $3,313 
for processing costs that require between 40 and 64 hours. The final 
rule has not been published in the Federal Register.

    5a) Is the Forest Service still planning to totally eliminate the 
exemption for the first 50 hours of work?

    5b) There are no refunds for categories 1 through 4 even if the 
agency does not respond or complete the work paid for under cost 
recovery. Are you planning to modify that portion of the rule to 
provide a refund if the agency fails to act?

    5c) Is the pre-decisional objection process for project-level 
actions subject to cost recovery?

    5d) When does the Forest Service expect to publish the final cost 
recovery rule?

    Question 6. The Forest Service has been encouraged to look at the 
expansion of categorical exclusions (CATEX's) for routine special 
recreation permit re-issuance. The agency has made some progress in 
implementing CATEX's for ministerial permit renewal. However, in 
designated wilderness, we are faced with hurdles outside the NEPA 
process, such as the Minimum Requirements Analysis (MRA) for activities 
that are prohibited in the wilderness but which may be necessary to 
fulfill the purposes of the Act. Some so-called ``non-conforming'' uses 
are authorized by Congress when a Wilderness is designated. An example 
would be the authorization for motorboat towing service in the Boundary 
Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.

    6a) Does the MRA apply to these congressionally authorized uses?

    6b) Are there additional categorical exclusions and streamlining 
actions the agency can take to improve the efficiency of issuing 
recreational special use permits?

    Question 7. In the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, the 
Superior National Forest imposed a ``temporary'' cap on backcountry 
permits at 80% of the previous cap in response to increased use during 
the COVID-19 pandemic. When will this temporary cap be lifted?

    Question 8. The Forest Service is revising SUDS, a web-based 
application used by Special Uses administrators to authorize permit 
leases and easements, amend these authorizations, and track billing 
information in the Recreation and Lands Programs. Program managers use 
the system to collect, analyze, maintain, and track data about special 
use permits and revenue, including data about land use and cost 
recovery.

    8a) What is the status of that revision, how much does it cost, and 
when do you expect it to be launched?

    8b) Are there any issues complicating SUDS implementation?

    8c) Will these changes interrupt the processing of special use 
permit applications?

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Chief Moore, for your testimony. We 
really appreciate that you are here today. And I will now 
recognize Members for 5 minutes.
    We are going to take a couple rounds of questioning here 
before we break for votes. I recognize the gentleman from 
Minnesota for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chief Moore, thank you once again for coming before the 
Subcommittee.
    Despite dramatic budget increases in Fiscal Year 2022 and 
2023, we are seeing reduced access to outdoor recreation and 
diminished public benefits across the National Forest System. 
This has been evident in the Superior National Forest in 
northern Minnesota, for example.
    In the Boundary Waters Canoe Area a ``temporary cap on 
backcountry permits,'' equal to 80 percent of their previous 
cap, was put in place in response to increased demand and use 
during the COVID-19 pandemic. During that time campsites in the 
BWCA were also closed, but many of those campsites still have 
not reopened today. Clearly, these caps are not temporary.
    What progress has the Forest Service made in reopening our 
national forests and ensuring we return to pre-pandemic levels 
of access?
    Mr. Moore. Thank you for that question, Congressman.
    We are currently working with the local community to do 
just what you described. To date, we have not made a lot of 
progress, but I would be willing to get back with you by the 
week's end to give you more specifics on what we have been able 
to do within the community.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you. The Service is largely reliant on a 
Ticketmaster-style online permit registration system involving 
a mad dash to compete for a limited number of permits when they 
are released. Oftentimes, people buy up large blocks of permits 
that often go unused. And I recognize this isn't just an issue 
for the BWCA or the Superior National Forest or the Forest 
Service.
    That said, what specifically is the Forest Service doing to 
address this?
    Mr. Moore. First of all, we want to be able to really 
understand what is going on. And we are trying to be responsive 
to what people are choosing to do by buying up blocks. So, we 
are looking into it to see what opportunities we have to limit 
what we see happening across that whole system. And to date, I 
don't have any news to report to you in terms of the progress 
that we have made on that.
    Mr. Stauber. Chief, are you looking to limit the big blocks 
of buying the permits for entry? Is that what you just said?
    Mr. Moore. We are going to be looking at all of it, 
including the big blocks.
    Mr. Stauber. OK. Well, let me ask you this. Would 
increasing the number of available permits and returning to 
pre-pandemic levels of access help alleviate this issue or make 
it worse?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, I think it would, Congressman.
    Mr. Stauber. Changing gears a bit, would you consider 
timber harvesting to be an important tool for the Forest 
Service to protect against wildfire risk?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, timber is a necessary tool.
    Mr. Stauber. In Fiscal Year 2024, the Forest Service missed 
its timber harvesting target by approximately 260 million board 
feet. That includes missing the mark on forests like the 
Chippewa and Superior National Forests. You missed your 3.4 
billion board feet goal by over 7.5 percent, almost 8 percent. 
How does missing this timber harvesting goal affect the forest 
system's wildfire risk?
    Mr. Moore. Congressman, one of the challenges we have is 
litigation. And if you look at the amount of litigation we have 
with our problems, we would have exceeded our timber targets. 
We have no control over that part of it. We just have to deal 
with it.
    Our plan was to meet or exceed our targets. We would have 
done that, but for the litigation that we are currently under.
    Mr. Stauber. The weaponizing of the court system is what 
you are saying?
    Mr. Moore. I am saying that we would have met our targets, 
but for litigation.
    Mr. Stauber. The Service has lowered its timber harvesting 
goal from 3.4 billion board feet to 3.2 billion board feet for 
the next 2 years. If the Forest Service is aiming to harvest 
200 million less board feet of timber over the next year, how 
do you plan to address this delta in terms of the wildfire 
risk?
    Mr. Moore. Well, actually, for the last 20 years, our 
timber harvesting has gone up. In fact, if I look at the last 
20 years, we have increased our timber harvesting by roughly 30 
percent. I am not really sure about the numbers that you are 
spouting, but I would be happy to meet with you separately to 
look at the numbers that you have, and where you got those 
numbers from, and compare to what we are showing in our books.
    Mr. Stauber. We got them from the professionals in the 
Forest Service.
    And thanks in large part to the decreased availability of 
timber from Federal lands, mills across this country are 
closing, including several in my district, that have led to 
layoffs for hundreds of employees.
    And given that many of our national forests are working 
industrial forests, does the Forest Service take into 
consideration lost economic activity when it makes decisions 
that limit responsible industrial use of our forests?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, Congressman. I mean, any time a mill 
closes, it hurts us, as well. And many of our employees have 
grown up and lived in those same communities.
    Mr. Stauber. I have 1 second left. I appreciate, Chief 
Moore, that you said in your comments that you are looking at 
national forests to produce energy and mineral development. The 
Superior National Forest is a working industrial forest where 
mining and timber harvesting are a desired condition. And we 
want to keep that just as it is. Thank you very much.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, I just add to the gentleman from 
Minnesota we have talked to the Chief offline here. We want to 
see those numbers where they are saying that those harvest 
levels have actually gone up. We want to look at them in the 
long term as well as the short term. And we will be working 
with members of the Committee and with the Chief to compare 
those numbers and see where the differences lie.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Tiffany. I would now like to recognize the Ranking 
Member, Ms. Kamlager-Dove, for 5 minutes for her questioning.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And thank you, Chief Moore, for your testimony. I just want 
to add that a Fiscal Year 2022 economic analysis found, 
actually, that the U.S. fire service programs contributed $44.3 
billion in gross domestic product and contributed 410,000 jobs. 
I think that is a very strong return on investment for the 
appropriations that you all have received.
    Can you share how the Forest Service is addressing the most 
critical landscapes through the 10-year Wildfire Crisis 
Strategy and the funding provided from the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, I would be happy to.
    The Wildfire Crisis Strategy involves and includes about 21 
different landscapes across the West primarily. In those 21 
landscapes, we have identified 550 communities within it, 2,500 
miles of utility corridor lines. And we also have about 1,800 
municipal or priority watersheds that serve as drinking water 
for 12 million people.
    So, in that we are looking at the type of investment that 
we are making in those landscapes that are so important to the 
American people. And to date, just in the last 1\1/2\ to 2 
years of implementation of the Wildfire Crisis Strategy, we 
reduced the risk to homes by 8 percent. We reduced the risk to 
utility corridors and that critical infrastructure about 
another 8 percent. And then, on those watersheds that are so 
important, we reduced the risk there about 12 percent.
    And you may say, well, what does all of this mean? And what 
it really means in other terms is that we reduced the risk to 
about $300 million worth of homes. And we have also reduced the 
risk to drinking water that serves 12 million people. This is 
only after the first 1\1/2\ years of implementation of the 
Wildfire Crisis Strategy. And we feel that, with sustained 
investment, you will continue to see that investment improve 
$700 billion worth of values just within those 21 landscapes.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Great. Has funding been dispersed to all 
21 landscapes, including identified landscapes in Southern 
California?
    Mr. Moore. Yes. Southern California is one of the 
landscapes. We also have some in Northern California, and we 
have them across the West primarily, and we have about $1.8 
billion that have been identified to work on that. And we have 
treated approximately 1 million acres within the 21 landscapes 
so far.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Great. And what will happen to your 
progress treating critical landscapes when the funding runs 
out?
    Mr. Moore. I would like to ask Congress what happens if it 
runs out, because all of the progress that we are building and 
creating would be at risk or at jeopardy. Because once we 
create these conditions, what we don't talk about quite often 
is maintaining those conditions that we have invested in 
creating, and it is very critical.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Yes, thank you. There have been some 
narratives out there that conservation and climate resilience 
is a misplaced priority. But the reality is that the 
investments made possible from those funding bills have allowed 
the Biden administration to support sustainable management and 
restoration where there is an important need to reduce wildfire 
risk or to restore ecosystem integrity. Do you want to add to 
that?
    Mr. Moore. Yes. I can't underscore the value that both the 
BIL and IRA legislation has provided the Forest Service in 
creating and really getting at what we consider the biggest 
challenges to our forests, which are wildfire, disease, and 
insects. And there are a lot of reasons for that, but it is 
something that we continue to fall behind because we have not 
had the resources to address the issues.
    One example is when we look at the deferred maintenance 
that we have across the agency, it was at $8.6 billion. With 
GAOA, it has given us an opportunity to start looking at some 
of that backlog that we have. And when you look at some of the 
biggest challenges within that, roads, dams, and bridges create 
about $5.4 billion of that $8 billion of backlog.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. There is also this narrative 
that you all have still failed to meaningfully ramp up the 
number of acres treated. But you have said before that the 
performance is restricted by budget decreases and hazardous 
fuels reduction, and across-the-board increases of operational 
costs. In my last few seconds, do you want to add to that?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, I think one of the really strategic 
questions for this Committee and for us as well has to do with 
how do we report, or what are our performance metrics? Because 
the way that we have reported over the last 100 years, we need 
to diversify how and what we report if we are going to move 
into this future that is here.
    And what I mean by that is not just outputs, but outcomes 
of the work that we are doing on the landscapes because of the 
values that it benefits and protects.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady yields. I now recognize the 
gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Fulcher.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and, Chief Moore, it 
is a pleasure to see you again. Thank you for being here and 
for your work. We are clearly here to talk about the proposed 
budget, but that is directly impacted by the use of resources 
that your department impacts. So, I am going to kind of follow 
a line of discussion in that vein if OK with you.
    And you are familiar with my state, we have had 
conversations before. We have about 34 million acres in Idaho 
that is managed by the Federal Government. And the timber 
industry is a huge part of that, and a major industry and a 
major concern for us.
    And Chairmen Westerman and Tiffany also talked about the 
closures of mills and whatnot that is having an impact on all 
of us. We are not immune from that. In fact, just within the 
last few days, a major mill, Stimson Lumber Company in Idaho, 
just announced that they will be closing. And I am going to 
quote the CEO, a part of his statement here. According to the 
CEO, ``Over time, the supply of the size of timber processes 
has declined, and so we have had to reduce our production.''
    And if I recall correctly, you have talked in the past, in 
previous testimony, about the need for low-value materials and 
markets for those materials. So, I just want to open this up 
and get your feedback.
    To me, it is pretty clear that we have an issue of access 
to supply. That is one component. We have the issue of the 
processing or the mills. And then we have the issue of the 
markets. And if our numbers are correct, Chief Moore, about a 
third, a little less than that, 30 percent of the U.S. supply 
of lumber, of wood products comes from outside of the United 
States, with Canada and China being at the top of those import 
nations.
    So, from my vantage point, it is not a market issue that we 
have. It is an access to resource issue that we have. There is 
not a shortage of timber in Idaho. There is not a shortage of 
timber in the United States. But there appear to be very 
significant constraints, and those constraints are shutting our 
mills down.
    I just want to open that up, and that is my monologue, but 
I would like to get your commentary, as well.
    Mr. Moore. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. This issue that you 
raise, you are correct in so many different ways. Some of these 
things that you may not be aware of, though, are the market 
conditions, because markets are playing a role in this.
    And to give you an example, I look at just Idaho alone. And 
in Idaho, as of May 4 this past month, we sold 137 million 
board feet there. Also, as of May 4 in Idaho, we have about 580 
million board feet of timber that has been sold, but not yet 
cut. So, it is not cut because of market conditions, and it is 
playing a significant role in----
    Mr. Fulcher. But Chief, if I could just interject for a 
second, how are Canada and China able to come into our 
country--maybe not Idaho specific, but into our country--and 
compete, if that is true?
    Mr. Moore. Well, it is true. And we do business with a lot 
of countries, but I am only giving you the data that I have. 
And I am saying, if I had to look nationally at that same 
number, Congressmen, we have 8 billion board feet that have 
been sold that is not cut.
    So, there is a lot going on that is not being discussed or 
talked about, and I think that we need to be really transparent 
in what is really going on across the country. Because what you 
are saying is correct, but also what I am saying is correct. 
And there are conditions that we are not talking about that 
also have a significant role in what is going on across our----
    Mr. Fulcher. I know we are out of time, but I really, 
sincerely want to connect with you and have further 
conversations, because if there is a scenario where any other 
country with a product, with the amount of freight involved and 
processing and whatnot, that can ship to our country and 
outcompete our domestic sourcing, there is something that has 
to be looked at that is just not right, that needs attention. 
And, unfortunately, I think it needs congressional 
intervention.
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    Mr. Fulcher. I am out of time. I thank you for your 
exchange, and I sincerely want to continue this beyond this 
discussion.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Moore. I would love to, by the way.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. And as I stated 
previously, and I am sure the gentleman from Idaho heard that, 
we are going to be engaging with the Chief offline here, and 
you are sure welcome to join us in regards to that. We want to 
see the numbers that they are producing, as well as the other 
numbers that are being produced by other folks who follow this 
very closely.
    Chief, I hope you can take a little break here, because we 
do have to cast a couple votes. We will be back here as 
promptly as possible.
    The Committee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Tiffany. The Committee will be in order.
    I would now like to recognize the gentleman from Colorado 
for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chief Moore, last year, I asked you questions regarding 
wildfire, specifically on thinning and fuels management. You 
concurred that healthy forests should have between 50 to 80 
trees per acre, as opposed to 250 to 300 that national forests 
near my district have. As I said last time, in the fall of 
2020, Colorado saw the two largest wildfires in state history: 
the Cameron Peak Fire and the East Troublesome Fire. Most of 
these happened on Federal land.
    Despite robust funding, fuel material continues to pile up 
on Federal lands. In fact, the Fiscal Year 2025 presidential 
budget request asks for more money while targeting 200,000 less 
acres than last year. Has there been any change since we spoke 
on the Forest Service's position on tree thinning and fuels 
management?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, we are constantly looking at fuels 
management. And in Colorado, particularly along the Front 
Range, that is one of our priority landscapes. And we have 
ramped up treatments in the Front Range landscapes, so we are 
making, actually, a lot of progress there, Congressman, in 
terms of what we are able to do in terms of treatments on those 
landscapes.
    Mr. Lamborn. OK, very good. Also, the last time that you 
were in front of this Committee, you resisted the Forest 
Service using fuel-related categorical exclusions, and that is 
why I introduced the Locally-Led Restoration Act to provide 
flexibility in stewardship contracts while focusing on wildlife 
mitigation through fuel removal.
    So, my question is, you mentioned collaborating with 
community leaders. Please share what conversations, if any, you 
have had regarding stewardship and timber contracts with 
industry.
    Mr. Moore. We have had a number of memoranda of 
understandings and agreements with some of the industry folks.
    One of the latest ones we have had was with NAFO, the 
National Association of Forest Owners, and one of the contracts 
there had to do with the timber owners or the landowners. We 
have agreed to allow them to jump on a fire if it is in their 
area during an initial attack. That has been in place for a 
year now. And we went back and did an after-action review this 
past winter to look to see if there was any value to that, and 
we found out, with the timber and forest owners, that there was 
value. In fact, we saw a couple of fires that they were able to 
get to that could have grown into larger fires.
    The other agreement that we have with the industry is to 
look at opportunities after a fire for reforestation. So, we 
entered into an agreement, actually, with Sierra Forest 
Industries. And in that agreement, they have reforested some of 
the national forest-managed land as they were doing theirs. And 
I think we had about 120 acres this past year on that.
    So, we are looking at a lot of different opportunities that 
partner with industry and other community leaders to look at 
bringing them into the decision space on what we do out there.
    Mr. Lamborn. OK, that is good to see that progress being 
made.
    What this bill would do, as I just mentioned, is instead of 
all-or-nothing contracts, it lets there be a counteroffer, 
which is prevalent in the private sector but for some reason 
doesn't exist with Forest Service. So, I would love to see that 
legislation go forward, give you that authorization as another 
tool in the toolkit and another way for industry to be relevant 
in this space.
    I have also proposed using private sectors in whatever 
areas I can in all kinds of government service areas. There is 
a shortage of lumber and wood products during the pandemic, for 
instance, yet timber harvests have dropped since the early 
1990s and wildfires have continued to skyrocket.
    The United States produced 112 million board feet in 1987, 
but in 2022 less than 5 million board feet. So, production has 
gone down while wildfires have gone up. You mentioned the 
problems with litigation. Are there other things that could be 
done to restore some balance here?
    No one is talking about clear cutting millions of acres, 
but having some kind of balance with American jobs and products 
so we don't have to import so much from other countries.
    Mr. Moore. Yes, Congressman, I have committed earlier with 
Chairman Tiffany to really take a look at our data because the 
information that you just shared, I have different information 
that says the opposite.
    And I think you can sometimes have a seesaw effect from 
year to year about what timber is, but my data is telling me 
that we have seen slight increases over the last 20 years, 
actually, to the tune of about 30 percent. So, I would like to 
be able to sit down, and I have agreed already to sit down with 
Committee members here to go into a bit more detail on sharing 
that information.
    Mr. Lamborn. OK. Thank you.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I would now like to 
recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock, for 
his 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Welcome, Chief Moore. I am having nostalgic feelings for 
our meetings over the last 16 years, and I am very pleased to 
welcome you as the Chief of the Forest Service here today.
    A lot has happened in those 16 years, and it is 
heartbreaking. I am sure you have had the same experience. In 
my drives through the Sierra Nevada, whether it is to Yosemite 
or Lake Tahoe, Sequoia-Kings Canyon, or drives up to the Oregon 
border, beautiful forests that we used to take for granted are 
now simply gone. They have been reduced to scrub brush and dead 
tree trunks as far as the eye can see.
    I asked my staff to look into that because, is this an 
optical illusion, what do the statistics say? And their 
estimate is that about 25 percent of our national forests have 
burned down in the last 10 years. Does that comport with your 
general figures?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, I don't have the specific number, but I 
wouldn't argue with that number, Congressman. A lot has burned.
    Mr. McClintock. A quarter of our national forests gone, 
simply gone. Now, I am sure they will grow back in a century or 
two, but they are gone for all of us for the rest of our 
lifetimes, and for our children's lifetimes.
    The Forest Service was supposed to protect our forests, and 
for generations they did.
    [Chart.]
    Mr. McClintock. And getting to Mr. Lamborn's point, I asked 
our staff to chart the board feet harvested out of the Federal 
forests and the acreage burned in our Federal forests. And this 
goes back from 1962 to 2022. You see the blue bars here? That 
is board feet harvested out of the national forests. The orange 
bars, that is acreage burned. And there is nothing subtle about 
this trend. It is dramatic.
    And you are right, it may vary from year to year, but you 
take a look at what has happened. As the Federal timber harvest 
has dropped precipitously, acreage burned has grown 
precipitously.
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    Mr. McClintock. And we agree that about a quarter of those 
forests have now been destroyed by these policies.
    You and I both know that excess timber is going to come out 
of that forest in only one of two ways. Either we are going to 
carry it out or it is going to burn out. What do these charts 
tell you?
    Mr. Moore. Well, they don't tell me anything different than 
what they are telling you. I mean, I don't think it is a big 
secret we are not managing to the degree that our forests need.
    We also don't have----
    Mr. McClintock. And why aren't we? Because this is one of 
the great ironies. You look at the private landowners. In 
California, about half of the forests are privately owned. They 
are kept in excellent condition, and the landowners make a lot 
of money doing that. The Federal forests are absolutely 
decrepit. Again, one quarter of them destroyed. Yet, we lose 
money. What is the difference?
    Mr. Moore. The difference, and you may or may not care to 
hear this, but the difference is we don't have the resources to 
manage the forests to the degree that they need to be managed.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, we used to, and we used to do it for 
a lot less. We used to make money harvesting this excess timber 
out of the forests. Now it costs us money.
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    Mr. McClintock. Not because of a lack of resources, but 
because the laws that have been adopted in the 1970s make it 
cost prohibitive for us to continue those sound forest 
management practices. So, not a lot gets done. And until you 
can acknowledge that, we are going to continue to have these 
discussions and these disagreements, and we are going to 
continue to watch our Federal forests die out and be burned 
out.
    I do want to compliment you on your administration of the 
WIIN Act of 2016 that got a categorical exclusion from NEPA for 
forest thinning projects under 10,000 acres. That was 
administered in the Tahoe Basin under your leadership, and I 
believe that that was exemplary. I have been trying to get 
legislation to the Floor that will extend those policies 
nationally. Would that help or hurt the cause of the forests?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, Congresswoman McClintock, you and I go back 
quite a ways. And one of the benefits that we have gotten from 
some of your legislation was the 5,000-acre CE there on the 
Tahoe area. And that was very beneficial in actually creating 
and supporting an industry that was nearby.
    So, there are opportunities to----
    Mr. McClintock. I think it actually saved the city of South 
Lake Tahoe from the Caldor Fire. It hit a treated tract under 
that authority. The fire laid down, and firefighters were able 
to put it out. But I am having a hell of a time getting that 
onto the House Floor for a vote, despite the fact it came out 
of this Committee with a somewhat bipartisan vote. And with 
your experience with these policies, I would hope that we can 
get that into law, but we have to overcome a problem here in 
this House.
    But thank you for being here today. Thank you for your work 
all these years.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now recognize the 
gentlelady from New Mexico for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chief Moore, thank you so much for being here with us 
today. I am Melanie Stansbury. I represent New Mexico's 1st 
Congressional District, which includes the Albuquerque area and 
10 counties in central New Mexico.
    I want to start by, first of all, saying thank you. We had 
a fairly large wildfire break out in Lincoln County on the 
southern tip of my district just 2 weeks ago. And your incident 
command and all of the Forest Service guys who are out on the 
ground have done just an exemplary job, and I wanted to commend 
them and thank them for all of their work. In the early days of 
that fire, there were some communication challenges with some 
of the local residents, but your incident command got there, 
and they now have it almost completely contained, folks are 
back in their homes. So, I just want to say thank you.
    Oftentimes, the Forest Service doesn't get their flowers 
for the good work that they do, so we really appreciate it. And 
I also want to say thank you to all the hotshot crews and 
firefighters who are out there on the ground.
    I am sure a lot of this has been covered this morning, but 
obviously we are seeing a huge increase in both the number of 
fires and intensity of fires. And in New Mexico, this is 
certainly the case across the state. And the wildfire season is 
shifting dramatically earlier. I mean, we are already having 
fires across the state, and it is only May. And the questions I 
wanted to ask today are really about community collaborations 
with the Forest Service and resources that are available. And I 
want to kind of ask them in two tranches.
    One is about resources that are available to help 
communities that want to engage in forest thinning and 
treatments to help prevent fires, as well as some of the 
challenges we are seeing working with utilities, especially 
with climate change and how it is changing mitigation 
activities.
    So, if we could start talking about utilities, one of the 
challenges that we are seeing in New Mexico is that the current 
guidance, both from Forest Service and just the way in which 
utilities have managed their power lines, and I know this is 
true in California, as well, is that they had certain easements 
and cutbacks in terms of how close the forest was allowed to 
grow to the power lines. I believe it was 3 years ago we had 
the McBride Fire in Lincoln County, where we had 90-mile-an-
hour winds, and we had a sapling that crossed with a power 
line, and basically ignited a massive fire. And the utilities 
were in the correct cutback zone, but with that kind of wind 
intensity it still happened.
    One of the things we are hearing, and I know this is a 
problem across the West, is that utilities just don't have the 
resources. And Forest Service, of course, is also strapped in 
terms of manpower to get those mitigation easements cleaned up. 
So, talk to us about what resources are available. In my 
personal opinion, it is not acceptable to cut power to 
communities for days at a time. And absent resources, that is 
what our utilities are talking about doing. So, what is 
available? How do we deal with this problem?
    Mr. Moore. First of all, thank you for that question, 
because we have been actively engaged with the utility industry 
over the course of the last couple of years because we know 
that that is a real critical area in the contributions to fire 
or mitigation from fire.
    Some of the things that we have done, and we started this 
in California, where we have streamlined our processes so that 
utility companies don't have to come and get permission every 
time they do routine maintenance under their power lines. And 
we have been doing that across the country over the last couple 
of years, trying to see where and how we can streamline 
processes so that we are not a limiting factor for treating 
underneath those power lines.
    The other issue, which we don't talk about too, though, is 
the whole issue around liability. And it is something that is 
there. We are going to have to have those tough conversations 
around it. And there are no solutions right now, but that is 
one of the biggest challenges that I see, particularly for the 
small, rural cooperatives. They just don't have the ability 
when fires strike.
    So, it is a critical area for us. We have to look at that 
because, just like you, I don't see any scenario where we are 
not going to provide electricity to a lot of our rural users.
    Ms. Stansbury. Yes. And at the end of the day, it is not 
just a climate mitigation issue and a public safety issue. I 
mean, this is people's lives on the line. We are talking about 
in Lincoln County, for example, if they cut power to a 
community like Ruidoso, we are talking hospitals, clinics. I 
mean, this is going to actually impact real lives and the local 
economy in this rural area.
    The other piece I get asked all the time is that we have 23 
Tribal Nations in New Mexico. They absolutely would like to 
partner with the Forest Service to do forest treatments, but 
are struggling to identify where the money is, how to engage in 
those conversations. What part of the Forest Service is the 
best point of contact to understand how to access these 
infrastructure and IRA monies and those co-stewardship 
agreements?
    Mr. Moore. Well, typically, depending on the location, they 
should be contacting the forest supervisor. And if that forest 
supervisor is not available, I mean, the regional forester.
    But my office, if you just can't get any help, for someone 
like you, if you contact me or my office, that is another way 
to get that pushed down.
    But normally, if everything was working as it should be, 
then our tribes should be working with the forest supervisor.
    Ms. Stansbury. Excellent. Maybe a follow-up on this, and we 
would love to engage with you all on this, is to ask your 
forest supervisors at large to do more proactive engagement 
with our tribes and consultation on funding resources 
available.
    Mr. Moore. Yes, Congresswoman, I don't know if you aware, 
but we have developed a whole Tribal Action Plan, and a part of 
that plan is to educate the entire workforce on tribal issues. 
So, we have moved to make great strides in that area. In fact, 
we have changed our State and Private Forestry name to State, 
Private and Tribal. And we are making tremendous strides in 
trying to improve the relationships with a lot of our tribal 
communities.
    Ms. Stansbury. Excellent. Well, I think at the end of the 
day, it really comes down----
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Stansbury. Oh, I am just going to wrap up my sentence.
    We would love to engage with you on that issue. It is 
really important to our Tribal Nations.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
    Mr. Tiffany. You are welcome for the extra time.
    I would like to recognize the gentleman from Oregon for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And thank you, Chief, for being here today. I also want to 
thank you for the prompt response to my concern raised at our 
last meeting regarding the tribal stewardship contracts out in 
Oregon. And there was a prompt reaching out, and we very much 
appreciate that.
    Also, I want to give a shout out to Merv George for his 
work. It has been excellent, and we are very appreciative of 
his work and yours in putting together the memorandum of 
understanding on allowing private parties to suppress fires on 
Federal land in Oregon. That is hugely important, given the 
checkerboard nature of which you are all too familiar with of 
that land. So, perhaps a comment of why you supported the MOU 
that allows private parties to go on Federal land and put out 
fires.
    Mr. Moore. One of the things that we want to do is bring 
the community into the decision space on some of the things 
that are taking place. No one cares about the community better 
than the people that live in those communities, so bringing 
them to the table and not just to get their opinion, but also 
giving them decision space, it is the right thing to do, and it 
is the necessary thing to do.
    And what we are finding, by bringing the community into 
discussion, is that we are getting better-supported solutions. 
And that is one of the solutions. You may or may not be 
familiar with what just happened yesterday in the Bend area, 
having a tentative agreement on the homeless issue there. And I 
would say that just having a lot of different entities engaged 
in solutions and discovering solutions has really been a win-
win for everyone.
    Mr. Bentz. Well, we hope for that outcome in and around 
Bend, for sure. It has been a long time coming. But yay.
    Let's talk about the amount that people are being paid 
right now to fight fires. And one of the situations that has 
occurred is that the people actually that are contracting have 
had pay increases imposed upon them for $10 an hour, I think, 
for those that are out fighting fire. But that $10 did not 
extend to the folks who had been there longer. And as a result, 
what we have are people at the lower end of the pay scale 
getting a $10-an-hour increase, but people at the higher level, 
no. And that is creating incredible difficulties.
    My understanding is that you folks have been working on 
this, but there has been no resolution. Can you bring us up to 
date on how this is----
    Mr. Moore. Are you talking about the pay bump that the 
firefighters got?
    Mr. Bentz. Yes.
    Mr. Moore. There was actually a $20,000 pay bump for GS-10s 
and below. And a part of that was to get at the issue around 
retention that we were having across the agency. And the other 
thing is that we had to do this because you could work at a 
fast food restaurant and make more than a number of our 
firefighters were making----
    Mr. Bentz. Right, I don't think I am talking about Federal 
employees. I think I am talking about contract employees that 
are working for people who are contracting to do firefighting.
    Mr. Moore. Yes, I am not familiar with that. I know we are 
required on the Davis-Bacon Act to pay appropriate wages. I 
would be happy to follow up with you to get more specifics on 
that particular issue.
    Mr. Bentz. Please, if you would, we would very much 
appreciate that.
    Mr. Moore. OK.
    Mr. Bentz. Also, there has been an issue raised that has to 
do with the nature of Forest Service contracting when it comes 
to going for the cheapest possible bid as opposed to the more 
quality, experienced, long-term contracts. And this is a 
decision made inside the Forest Service. And the result has 
been perhaps less money paid out, but perhaps not the quality 
of the project being done that all of us want. Can you talk 
about that for a moment?
    Mr. Moore. Yes. You may be talking about getting the 
cheapest bid, or the best value bid would be another way. And 
we have been looking at exploring the best value-type 
contracts, because it gives a local contractor an opportunity 
to win a number of those contracts.
    Here again, if I had specifics on specific contracts, I can 
give you a specific response or answer. And I would be happy to 
follow up with you.
    Mr. Bentz. No, thank you for that, and we will get you 
those specific instances of where long-term folks who have been 
doing the job quite well suddenly are being outbid by people 
that come in from goodness knows where, and the job that gets 
done is not what you, I think, or I would want from a quality 
standpoint.
    My last question has to do with the success of the 
categorical exclusion as a device to get us into the woods. 
What is your comment? What is your thought? Should we be, as 
the Congressman from California suggested, expanding upon the 
CEs?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, as a matter of fact, I have looked at the 
NEPA that we use across the country, and about 87 percent of 
our NEPA is done through CEs, and that is about 1,134 CEs that 
we have used, as opposed to about 150 EAs and about 7 EISs.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you so much.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I would now like to 
recognize the gentlelady from New Mexico, Ms. Leger Fernandez.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you.
    Mr. Tiffany. For 5 minutes.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you very much, and thank you, 
Chief Moore. We talk often.
    And I really want to thank you for advocating for 
comprehensive pay, the $20,000 bump you just talked about for 
housing, because we need to make sure that our forest fighters 
and the people who not just fight the forests, but who care for 
the forests have housing, addressing mental health, and the 
well-being of our Federal firefighters. Those of us who live 
among the forests and play among the forests know the hard work 
that they do and the sacrifices that they endure on behalf of 
the communities and those firefighters, and they are often from 
those communities, and I think that that is really key.
    I also want to thank the heroic men and women who are 
presently fighting the Indios wildfire in my district. As you 
know, we have several wildfires going in New Mexico.
    And I was struck by the fact that in 2022, Congress 
appropriated $10.8 billion to the Forest Service. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Moore. Through the BIL and IRA, you mean?
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yes.
    Mr. Moore. Yes, that is right.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. And then, according to your written 
testimony, that same year the Forest Service contributed $44.3 
billion to our country's GDP. So, we invested $10.8 billion in 
the Forest Service, we got 400 percent back as a return on 
investment. And I think that that is really important for us to 
think about when we are thinking about these budgets, is that 
we are investing, that they are investments. They are not 
something that goes away, they are not frivolous. It is not 
waste. They are investments, and they are giving us a 
tremendous return.
    Now, when you are thinking about investments, though, 
because of Republican cuts you are operating on an $8.2 billion 
budget, and that is a 25 percent cut from 2022. Correct?
    Mr. Moore. Right.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. So, I think we go back to that we have 
to invest in those places that protect us and those places that 
generate the kind of revenue we are talking about.
    But I want to go to something that maybe might be seen by 
some as small, but by the communities that are impacted, it is 
very large, and that is cemeteries. It is my understanding that 
if a cemetery is on Forest Service land and a community would 
like to have that cemetery returned to them, the Forest Service 
must go through an expensive process of evaluation: is there a 
reason for transferring it, is there authority, what is the 
dollar value? And there is a long, bureaucratic process for 
transferring back to a community a place where they have buried 
their ancestors, where you know you are not going to do 
anything else with that cemetery because it is hallowed ground. 
Is that right?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, that is something that we should really 
talk more about because you are right, we are not going to do 
any kind of management activities on those lands. And as you 
know, too, we are required to follow laws and procedures, but I 
think we would be willing to sit down and see what would be a 
wonderful solution to this issue that you are bringing up.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right. I think an amendment to the 
Small Tracts Act, so we will look forward to working with you 
on that because I think anybody around this rotunda would 
recognize that that is something that we are going to need to 
transfer back to those people whose ancestors are there.
    The other thing, Chief Moore, I think the first time you 
and I spoke was after the first fire that the Forest Service 
started in New Mexico that got out of control, and I know you 
did a review, but we also asked for a Government Accountability 
Office review, a GAO review. That is now coming to completion.
    And while I welcome what you have done in yours, I think it 
was essential that we have that independent look that looked at 
all fires because we started with that one, and then we had a 
second one where you walked away from the campfire, as I call 
it. Nobody should walk away from the campfire. So, you haven't 
seen the report yet, but I think I am going to be asking you 
for a commitment to implement what the GAO has identified. Can 
you give me that commitment?
    Mr. Moore. Yes. In fact, I would be really interested in 
seeing what the GAO report has.
    As you may recall, right after that Hermits Peak Calf 
Canyon Fire, I called a 90-day pause on all prescribed burns 
across the agency. And in that process, we looked at all of our 
prescribed burning, and we made some recommendations that we 
are living by today in that.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Well, we are not living by all of the 
recommendations, or not living by everything that you have 
committed to me. I mean, we need to really make sure that the 
drones and the infrared technology is being deployed for 
prescribed burns. There are some things that we need to get 
done. And in your initial report following Hermits Peak, there 
were a lot of issues, and ``Oh, but we did everything right,'' 
and it is like you had a whole list of issues that were done 
wrong. So, I think we need to be careful, because sometimes you 
have wanted to have it both ways. We are going to be doing 
this, but also then not truly, truly owning the mistakes that 
were made.
    So, hopefully, the GAO report will give us new insight, and 
hopefully you will be willing to make sure they get 
implemented.
    Mr. Moore. Yes, and I can give you an example of it. I know 
you are real big on the use of drones to monitor fires. And we 
have committed to using drones where necessary and when 
necessary.
    One of the challenges that we really have from drones is 
that we have a requirement that we cannot use drones with 
Chinese products in them. And a drone without that, in many 
cases, it costs us $80,000 for each one, as opposed to a much 
cheaper drone using other types. So, we have to work that out 
from a budget standpoint, as well.
    But we are working on that. We are committed to it, and we 
know that the technology is rapidly changing every day. And 
while we may not have that opportunity now, we think that in 
the future, because of the development of the technology, we 
would be able to use that going into the future.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right. Well, the Biden administration 
has been real big on making sure that we bring manufacturing 
back home.
    But we have gone over our time. These New Mexican women, we 
just want to have long conversations, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Tiffany. No comment.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. I would just gently chide my colleague from 
New Mexico in regards to the Republicans reducing funding in 
the latest appropriations bill for the U.S. Forest Service. 
Take a look at the number of people on the other side of the 
aisle that voted for that bill that reduces funding.
    I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa, for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
opportunity.
    Thank you, Chief Moore, for appearing today. We go back a 
long way, don't we?
    Mr. Moore. We do.
    Mr. LaMalfa. To the West. So, let's talk about the harvest 
numbers for a moment here. I would like to understand better 
how you are arriving at a 30 percent increase over, how many 
years was it, 20?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, the last 20 years.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Because with the chart I have, the information 
and the trend seems to be over a much longer period of time, 
where harvest being these olive-colored ones here, going from 
this is still the late 1980s right here, 12 billion board feet 
down to the low of about 2002. So, if you start at 2002 and 
trend up from there, you could see a slight increase, but a 
fairly flat one in board feet, but a dramatic drop-off from 
here. And then doggone it, it coincides with acres burned, 
vastly increasing at that point, too, as we have suffered so 
much in the West especially on that.
    So, I would like to understand how you are arriving at 
board feet harvested, is that the terminology you would like to 
use on that?
    Mr. Moore. Sold, board feet sold.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Sold, sold. So, does that mean it is 
delivered?
    Mr. Moore. That means it is sold. I will give you an 
example. And we can break it down by each area.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Well, time is short, and I am not going to get 
New Mexico time, probably. But board feet sold versus actually 
delivered. I want to know how many feet are coming out of the 
forests in marketable timber, lumber.
    Mr. Moore. Well, that was it. I mean, our target this year 
is 3.2 billion board feet.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Which is a lower number than last year, yet 
there is projected to be a lower number for following years. 
But we had these huge numbers years ago.
    Mr. Moore. Well, it is more than what we actually achieved 
last year.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Achieved, yes, but you fell short of the goal 
by about a quarter billion board feet of last year's goal.
    Mr. Moore. Yes, there is a lot that is not being brought up 
in this conversation, so I----
    Mr. LaMalfa. And it is tough, 5 minutes at a time here. But 
when you talked about litigation a bit earlier stopping you 
from hitting that goal by a quarter billion feet. Just an idea, 
I am not trying to be mean here, but why wouldn't you open more 
bids so that you have more being litigated at the same time, 
and more of them actually fall through the hole and make it, 
and then reach the number?
    Mr. Moore. Well, that would be an approach, Congressman, 
but that is not the one that we are choosing to do, simply 
because we don't have----
    Mr. LaMalfa. Why don't you choose to do more? Because we 
are suffering out here.
    Mr. Moore. We don't have the ability to do more than what 
we are currently doing----
    Mr. LaMalfa. You just had a massive influx of money here 
from the IRA recently. They told us at a hearing in Spearfish, 
South Dakota, they said, ``We have more money right now than we 
have ever had.'' Yet, they still wanted $20 million more to do 
a project there that the Nyman Company needed. They have just 
laid off 50 workers there at their plant in Spearfish because 
they can't keep up. They can't get out in the forest enough to 
do, they need about 120 million board feet to do the job. And 
as of March, they only had 10 million over the whole year. So, 
they have since subsequently laid off 50 people there. We have 
lost 50 mills in the last 18 months or 15 months or so. I don't 
know where the infrastructure is going to be to process what it 
is the output is.
    Let me ask a number from you here. If we are putting out 
3.1 to 3.4 billion, how many board feet are being grown in your 
forest in a year? How much are the trees just out there growing 
per year?
    Mr. Moore. There were about three or four questions there, 
so----
    Mr. LaMalfa. Well, just the one. How many board feet are 
you growing on your 193 million acres, do you think, annually?
    Mr. Moore. Well, how I am going to answer you is that there 
are different ways to look at that. And I know some of your 
friends in the industry are giving you a number. They are 
looking at----
    Mr. LaMalfa. I don't have a number off the top of my head. 
No one has given me a number. I am asking you, sir.
    Mr. Moore. Well, we are cutting below the ASQ, if I looked 
at all the plans across the country. And we are cutting that 
below ASQ because we don't have the resources to cut more than 
what we are currently cutting.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Do you think we are growing about 6 billion 
board feet per year out in our forests, maybe?
    Mr. Moore. I can't give you that with any confidence.
    Mr. LaMalfa. It has to be in that ballpark, 5 to 6 billion. 
But we are cutting 3, 3\1/2\ as a goal. So, over a period of 
time, how are we going to ever keep up with the amount of board 
feet that are growing and the density we are talking about?
    Ms. Stansbury was talking about the power lines a little 
bit, and I hope people can support the farm bill because I have 
a piece in there to expand the gap between power lines and the 
forests from 10 feet to 50 feet, and we had to pass a law in 
2018 to direct your agency to be more timely in getting permits 
out to take hazardous trees.
    And we are trying to build upon that because 10 feet is not 
a lot when the power line is shorter than the trees next to it. 
I would like it even wider than 50, if you want to take it, 
because, as Ms. Stansbury said, we are shutting down people's 
power. Like in Tehama County, sometimes I drive through there 
in the past, and the whole county is shut off at night in 
Northern California because the wind might blow in this first-
world country and cause a power line problem.
    So, we need a lot better output on board feet taken because 
it is not keeping up. And I would certainly like to hear more 
about your numbers on how you come up with that trend over the 
20, 30 years versus an actual decrease in what you are 
expecting to do the next 2 years with 200 million board feet.
    Let me close on the idea that you are trying to free up 
$1.36 billion to take it into emergency spending, which means a 
lot more discretionary. Do you intend to purchase electric 
vehicles with this freed-up money that is going to be in your 
main budget now?
    Mr. Moore. I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if we 
do purchase some electric vehicles.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Will that be in the forest, or will they be 
running around in DC with those?
    Mr. Moore. Congressman, I understand your position on this.
    Mr. LaMalfa. No, I am just asking the question, though. Are 
you going to buy a bunch of electric vehicles?
    Mr. Moore. Well, the other thing that we are trying to do 
to complement that is also look at electric plug-in spots on 
some of our campgrounds so that the people that do have 
electric vehicles can plug in while they are out visiting the 
recreation.
    Mr. LaMalfa. But we don't have enough money to help the 
Spearfish, South Dakota to be able to get their timber harvest 
done.
    I had better yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Tiffany. We are off New Mexico time now. I would like 
to recognize the gentleman from Utah.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you.
    Mr. Tiffany. And before you start, Mr. Curtis, the Chief 
has agreed that we are going to evaluate these numbers that are 
being put out. We are seeing some discrepancies. And we are 
going to work together with the Chairman of the Full Committee 
and others to match our numbers up, and see exactly where we 
stand. And I really appreciate the Chief and his willingness to 
be able to do that.
    Mr. Curtis.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chief, thank you for being with us. I don't know how 
familiar you are with Utah. Have you ever been to Utah?
    Mr. Moore. Lots of times.
    Mr. Curtis. Two-thirds of the land in Utah is owned by the 
Federal Government. I have parts of my district that are 90 
percent. So, you can see right off, if we are not getting the 
help and the coordination that we need from the Federal 
Government we are literally shut down as a state. And I would 
like to bring up some specifics with you today.
    As part of this experience in Utah and these amazing 
recreational areas, we are very dependent on local guides who 
can provide education, who can provide safety as people go into 
these areas. You can see sometimes if people go into these 
areas by themselves, it is hugely problematic. Yet, our local 
guides are experiencing great frustration, as am I, in their 
ability to get permits to do that. And my office has been 
working with the leadership of the Salt Lake Ranger District to 
address primarily two issues: first, the refusal to turn 
temporary permits into long-term priority use permits; and more 
recently, the termination of access to the Lone Peak Wilderness 
Area, where guides have been going for decades, and was 
recently reaffirmed in the 2022 permits, as is consistent with 
the management plan.
    Yet, frankly, I am frustrated, they are frustrated, and I 
have sent you a detailed letter which I would like to enter 
into the record that explains the situation.
    Mr. Tiffany. Without objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]

                     Congress of the United States

                             Washington, DC

                                                   June 3, 2024    

Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary
US Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave SW
Washington, DC 20250

Re: Outfitter and Guide Permits on the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National 
        Forest

    Dear Secretary Vilsack:

    We write today with serious concerns regarding the management of 
outfitter and guide permits on the Salt Lake Ranger District (SLRD) of 
the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest (UWCNF). For many years, there 
have been unnecessary limitations imposed on outfitters and guides 
seeking to operate in this Ranger District. Before Members of Congress 
became involved several years ago, the guides themselves made lengthy 
and sincere efforts to address these issues with the Supervisor of this 
forest, David Whittekiend. I enclose attached documentation of those 
efforts with this correspondence. We write you today because the SLRD 
has continued to limit access to the Forest. Most recently, the SLRD 
instituted an unnecessary moratorium on temporary permit holders in the 
Lone Peak Wilderness, which will also apply to priority permit holders 
at permit renewal. Furthermore, the SLRD has declined to take steps to 
issue long-term permits that would resolve many of these issues.
    While Members of Congress and guides have tried to work with the 
SLRD, we regret that none of the solutions suggested have met with Mr. 
Whittekiend's approval. On the one occasion the Supervisor did agree to 
Congressman Curtis's request to rescind the termination of all 
temporary guide and outfitter permits last year, he subsequently 
revoked the guides' and outfitters' access to the Lone Peak Wilderness 
area where guides have worked for decades. The explanation provided by 
the Supervisor contradicted his own decision to allow guiding in this 
area just two years prior. The fact that the Supervisor revoked and 
then reinstated access to this area in 2022, and is now doing so again, 
causes confusion among the public and the guides, interferes with 
public access to education and safety leadership, and disrupts the 
activities of hard-working local business owners and their employees.
    The guides and outfitters who serve the public through your permit 
system are instrumental in providing access to forest lands for people 
who are not able to visit on their own, whether due to a lack of 
experience, skills, or equipment. It is important to remember these 
people are part of the public we serve, and the public deserves an 
opportunity to experience their public lands with the assistance of a 
guide. The guides also promote safety education and Leave No Trace 
practices which directly support the goals of the US Forest Service. 
Uneducated visitors in a dangerous backcountry environment are a threat 
to themselves and others, potentially straining search and rescue 
resources.
    The two primary concerns that have arisen in the last year involve: 
(1) the revocation of access to the Lone Peak Wilderness area, which 
has been available to guides for decades prior, and (2) the ongoing 
lack of long-term priority use permits. The reasons given for both 
actions appear vacuous and contradictory.
    The basis provided for the inability to issue long-term permits (at 
an in-person meeting with the forest service supervisor, his staff, 
Congressman Curtis and his staff, and several guides and outfitters on 
November 21, 2023) was lack of personnel. Implementing more long-term 
permits would considerably alleviate the workload for agency staff (and 
guides) by reducing the frequency of permit renewals from every six 
months to every 10 years. The group pointed out that the Forest Service 
Enterprise Program was created to assist local staff with projects such 
as the development of long-term permit opportunities (see https://
www.fs.usda.gov/enterprise/skills-and-services.php). The group 
questioned why permanent priority permits were not forthcoming to save 
the extra work associated with the reissuance of temporary permits each 
year and pointed to the Enterprise Program as a potential resource to 
develop long-term permits. Nothing was accepted as a satisfactory 
resolution. Only after Congressman Curtis described the Supervisor's 
position as unacceptable did Mr. Whittekiend indicate he would consider 
alternatives, including assuring Congressman Curtis he would work 
toward the development of more long-term priority permit opportunities 
for the temporary permittees.
    Also of great concern, when winter season temporary permits were 
issued in January of this year, approximately 8 weeks after the 
November 21 meeting, the permits unexpectedly excluded the Lone Peak 
Wilderness. This came as a great shock to the guides, to us, and the to 
the public. Outfitting and guiding activities have occurred in this 
wilderness area for decades, and for good reason--there are highly 
desirable climbing, skiing, hiking, and camping opportunities that the 
public wishes to experience with the expertise of a guide. The guides' 
and outfitters' dismay at this development is unsurprising, as this 
issue was reviewed and addressed in 2022 when access had previously 
been revoked, then reinstated. The 2022 Letter To File (attached), 
interpreting the 2003 Wasatch-Cache Land and Resource Management Plan, 
states:

        Given our reliance on outfitting and guiding companies to 
        provide the valuable educational services to the public, the 
        increased use of climbing areas in wilderness, and the 
        increased visitation of recreational visitors in the Salt Lake 
        Ranger District, it appears to be contradictory to limit 
        outfitter and guiding companies if the desired future condition 
        is to have a well-educated public that uses National Forest 
        system lands. (emphasis added).

    This language shows that in 2022 the Supervisor recognized that 
outfitters and guides are important for educating the public, 
particularly as more people visit the forest. Nothing has changed since 
2022 to warrant this change in position. Congressman Curtis wrote a 
letter to Mr. Whittekiend requesting that he follow his prior 2022 
interpretation and remove the prohibition on outfitting and guiding in 
the SLRD Lone Peak Wilderness (see letter of March 28, 2024), 
attached). Mr. Whittekiend refused, and specifically blamed Congressman 
Curtis's prior request as part of the basis for this new decision. 
``This approach was necessary to expedite the request by your office 
and local outfitter and guides to issue winter temporary outfitter and 
guiding permits.''
    Learning to innovate and be creative in solving challenges is 
something we do well in Utah and which this local office seems to 
resist. We, the Utah delegation, would appreciate any assistance your 
office can provide in reinstating outfitting and guiding access to the 
Lone Peak Wilderness and taking steps toward the development of long-
term outfitting and guiding permits on the Salt Lake Ranger District. 
Thank you for your attention to these very important issues.

            Sincerely,

        John R. Curtis                Blake D. Moore
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Burgess Owens                 Celeste Maloy
        Member of Congress            Member of Congress

        Michael S. Lee                Mitt Romney
        United States Senate          United States Senate

                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you. The Utah Wasatch-Cache National 
Forest has been unwilling to work with us on finding creative 
ways to meet the needs for more priority permit holders, as 
opposed to temporary permit holders. Every time we meet with 
the Supervisor, there is a half-hearted attempt to address the 
limitations imposed on guides. However, a few weeks later those 
promises are unfulfilled and we are actually further away than 
when we started. That feels very punitive, and you can imagine 
how my constituents feel about that who are dependent on a 
living and provide a service to these people.
    For example, after reluctantly agreeing not to terminate 
all temporary guide and outfitter permits last year, only after 
a personal plea from me and meeting with them, the Supervisor 
subsequently revoked their access to the Lone Peak Wilderness 
Area, even though he told me he wouldn't. This has led to this 
amazing frustration, and I regret that we couldn't resolve this 
with this local office and I have to bring it here in a public 
manner to you, but I don't know what else to do.
    So, my question is, will you take immediate steps to 
provide more long-term outfitting and guiding permits in the 
Salt Lake Ranger District?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, Vice Chairman, I just recently became aware 
of this very issue that you are bringing up here and the letter 
that you sent to the Secretary. But the short answer is yes, of 
course. I want to work with you on a solution to this.
    Mr. Curtis. OK. If it is, and listen, I get it, a lack of 
resources, I can't imagine what the people out in the field are 
asked to deal with, with the lack of resources. Can we get the 
resources needed into this district so these permits can be 
issued?
    Mr. Moore. Will you allow me to take a look at this issue, 
get with the region and the forest so that I have a better 
understanding of what is really going on?
    But I will commit to you that I will work for a solution.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you. I will take you up on that, and 
would love to work with you personally. You can see how 
important this is, right? We have these access areas. If we 
don't have the guides, people go in by themselves. We end up 
costing more resources than otherwise. And this is a livelihood 
for many people in our state. That is very, very important. And 
when they get an answer and then it changes, you can see the 
frustration that we have.
    Mr. Moore. Sure.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you. I would like to bring up another 
issue.
    Not far from there is the Black Hawk Campground. In 2018, 
there was a serious fire up in Payson Canyon. It destroyed the 
campground, unfortunately. It was a very popular campground. It 
took a lot of pressure off other areas because of this 
campground. Also because of a lack of resources this campground 
has not been reopened since 2018.
    Likewise, I will just tell you, as I met with local 
officials in the area last week they told me there is a sense 
that the Forest Service is actually intentionally gradually 
shutting down more and more access. And by not reopening this 
campground, it plays into that narrative. The people on the 
ground are willing to volunteer. They are willing to bring 
local resources to get this campground back open.
    Likewise, will you work with me to figure out how we can 
get this campground back open?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, I will work with you on that.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you. I can't ask for anything more than 
that, and I appreciate your attention to these very important 
issues.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you. I yield my time.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields, and I will turn to the 
Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Westerman, for his 
questioning.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany.
    Thank you again, Chief Moore, for being here today.
    I think you and I agree on a lot of things in your 
testimony. In your written testimony, you use the word 
``access'' 10 times, and I have said that we need to practice 
conservation through access.
    I was intrigued by the very similar graphs that Mr. 
McClintock and Mr. LaMalfa put up that showed the harvest 
levels and the amount of forest fires, and how there was an 
inflection point. And I think we both agree that we want to see 
more management done on the forests to keep them healthy.
    So, if we go back to where that inflection point was, it 
was in the 1980s and really in the 1990s where we quit 
harvesting, and the amount of forest fires started increasing. 
But if you look at the specific policies that happened then, in 
the West you had the spotted owl controversy. And the idea was 
we are going to stop harvesting and we are going to save the 
spotted owl. Can you tell me what is happening to spotted owl 
populations in the West since that policy went in place?
    Mr. Moore. Well, I think, according to my knowledge, they 
have continued to decline.
    Mr. Westerman. At about 4 percent per year is what I have 
read. So, the policy hasn't worked to save the spotted owl, and 
we can, in hindsight, decades and decades later, look back and 
say this was a weaponized rule just to stop management on the 
forests, which was really a bad idea for the species and for 
the forests, as well.
    There was also another rule, and I emphasize the word 
``rule,'' not a law, put in place by Congress called the 
Roadless Rule. And I was visiting with folks from Finland the 
other day, and they were talking about how much pride they take 
in building roads and having access into their forests so they 
can manage better. And they were just befuddled by the idea 
that we build roads and then tear them out, which is a huge 
cost. And it is also a way to deny access when we put roads in 
and take them out.
    How critical are roads to doing not only management, but 
creating firebreaks and being able to get crews in to do fire 
suppression when needed? How critical are roads to that?
    Mr. Moore. Well, I mean, yes, they are necessary, critical.
    Mr. Westerman. Yes. And if we don't have roads, we end up 
spending a lot of money with tankers dropping fire retardants.
    And it just seems like we made some really bad decisions 
three or four decades ago that are really costing us on the 
backside right now.
    I have a lot of U.S. Forest Service land in my district, 
and I have always defended the Forest Service because I think 
the management on the Ouachita and the Ozark is as good as 
anywhere in the country, although there is room for 
improvement.
    In Montgomery County in my district, about 85 percent of 
the forests are Forest Service lands. I held a mobile office 
there a few weeks ago. Twenty-five people came in, and their 
issue was access on the Forest Service land. Some of them had 
been given tickets for riding down roads that were closed that 
they didn't know were closed, and then roads being closed off.
    So, in what world does it make sense that we don't create 
more access into these forests, and that we don't leave the 
roads in place after we go in and do management?
    I have seen it firsthand, a lot of money spent building a 
road, you go in and do the management, and then a lot of money 
spent tearing the road out and trying to return it back. Does 
that really make sense to do that?
    Mr. Moore. Well, I think some of the logic around that, 
whether we can agree on that or not, and I don't know the 
specific reason, but sometimes we build spec roads so that the 
timber industry that won the bid can go in and remove the 
timber, and when they are done with it, then we put the road to 
bed, we close it. I don't know if that is the situation there 
that you are referring to, but that has been somewhat of a 
common practice.
    Mr. Westerman. Yes, these are roads that have been open for 
a long time. And it is the No. 1 complaint I hear on the 
forests in my district are people have access denied to go on 
these roads.
    There is a crazy rule where you can drive a log truck or a 
passenger vehicle, but you can't drive an ATV down these roads, 
and that just doesn't make sense to the general public when 
things like that happen.
    So, I would hope that we would take another look at roads 
and access on the forests, and use some common sense there. It 
seems to me like it would be a huge benefit to the Forest 
Service, as far as public relations go, when you don't have 
Members of Congress' constituents calling them all the time, 
saying, ``Why is the Forest Service doing this crazy rule? Is 
it their job to keep taxpaying Americans off of the public 
land?'' Because that is how they see it.
    With that, I will yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields, and I am going to take a 
few minutes here for questioning. And I want to piggyback on 
what the Chairman was just asking there.
    We just had that field hearing, as you know, Chief Moore, 
up in Hayward, Wisconsin in regards to access, and heard some 
very good stories. Currently, the Forest Service is 
decommissioning an average of 2,000 miles of road annually. Is 
that accurate?
    Mr. Moore. I don't have that information available, but I 
wouldn't be surprised by it, sir.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, I think that number is, I mean, think 
about that. That is 2,000 miles annually that are being reduced 
for access.
    And to the Chairman's point, sometimes that road that is 
built to high specifications, when it is removed, it is removed 
at the cost to the contractor. So, the contractor is having to 
reduce their bid as a result of having to pay for the cost of 
removing the road. So, the Federal Treasury actually ends up 
with less money as a result of that.
    And it goes back to what the Chairman was saying, is that 
it just doesn't make sense to the public, and especially many 
of them don't know what I just shared with you in regards to 
the road removal. But when they hear it, they just go, duh, why 
are we doing these things?
    So, I guess my question is, this is a growing problem in 
regards to access. Will you commit to working with us to bring 
more access to the public?
    Mr. Moore. Mr. Chairman, yes, I want to be able to work 
with you and all of our public on access. I also want you to be 
able to understand the challenges that we have, too, because 
sometimes we can bring up individual pieces from a common-sense 
standpoint, why are we doing this?
    Let me just share with you, though, as I look across the 
agency and what we are being asked to do. We are being asked to 
manage a road system of about 371,000 miles. And in that 
371,000 miles of roads, we are only funded at about 25 percent 
to do that. I don't want to close roads, and yet I am not 
funded to maintain the road system that we currently have. So, 
it is a real dilemma for us in the Forest Service to be able to 
do that.
    So, I am not surprised. I am disappointed that we have some 
common-sense kinds of things that we can't come to an 
agreement, and I want to work on those types of things.
    Mr. Tiffany. I would just share with you that I think there 
are people locally that are willing to help in regards to this. 
I think there needs to be greater engagement in that regard, 
because that is what we heard at the hearing, is that there are 
people, including private individuals, that are willing to help 
out in this process to be able to make this happen.
    The other thing is that some would say that the Forest 
Service is far too passive in pushing back against those who 
want to put the restrictions in place. In fact, in the Forest 
Service, you have a broad range of ideologies, but there are 
some in the Forest Service that actually want to see greater 
restrictions. And that is where your leadership is valued so 
much is to be able to cut through that, where somebody's 
personal beliefs enter into public decision-making.
    Mr. Moore. Yes, but Mr. Chairman, let's take a look at 
that.
    Mr. Tiffany. Do you want us to report the employees that 
aren't----
    Mr. Moore. No, I want to be able to go out on that road 
that you are talking about, and let's see what is possible 
talking with some of the public there.
    Mr. Tiffany. OK. We will invite you up to meet my good 
friend, Senator Rob Stafsholt, and he will give you a tour, 
just as we had.
    Mr. Moore. Great.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, yes, let's see if we can do that.
    And by the way, I want to thank--your staff in Wisconsin 
was there, Director Youngblood, and we really appreciate that 
she attended that access hearing.
    So, the 2025 budget requests $124 million for new land 
acquisitions. Is that a good idea with a backlog of 
maintenance?
    Mr. Moore. Well, here again, let's look at the specifics of 
what has been requested, because sometimes land acquisition is 
for better access to the public lands. Sometimes it is for more 
efficient management.
    So, without knowing these specifics of a particular area, I 
would say there are different reasons for it.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, I think with the maintenance backlog that 
is going on, I mean, it should be a very high bar that we will 
be adding to the Federal estate at this point when we hear that 
there is this whole maintenance backlog. How much more money do 
you need?
    Mr. Moore. Well, if you doubled our budget right now, Mr. 
Chairman, we would certainly make that work, but it wouldn't be 
enough to do everything that is being asked. That is how 
underfunded--and I just gave you an example, it was a 371,000-
mile road system, and we are only funded at 25 percent of it.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, doubling the road budget would 
accomplish----
    Mr. Moore. Well, another example, because I can give you a 
specific number, but in general, when I look at the deferred 
maintenance backlog of over $8 billion, $5.45 billion of that 
is for roads, bridges, and dams. So, there is a lot of work to 
be done out there, and we are just not funded even to maintain 
the system that we have.
    Mr. Tiffany. Looking at those charts, two of them that you 
saw earlier over to my right, isn't that one of the ways that 
we could get there, is to harvest more wood?
    Mr. Moore. Well, yes, there is no silver bullet, so to 
speak. But yes, I mean, there are a lot of different ways to 
help us get there.
    Mr. Tiffany. In your testimony, you referred to green jobs, 
amongst other things that are benefits. What is a green job?
    Mr. Moore. Well, I don't know that I use that very much, 
but a green job is one of those jobs that I think is going to 
be working with the environment to keep it healthy and 
resilient.
    Mr. Tiffany. It was a recommendation that you put ``green 
job'' in your testimony, I take it. You don't have to answer 
that question. That is fine.
    What is old growth?
    Mr. Moore. Well, it depends on the species in terms of how 
you define that. But I think, in general, it is large, older 
trees.
    Mr. Tiffany. Is it defined?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, it is defined by species, but basically, 
just for simple language, it is the older trees that we have in 
the forests.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, in an executive summary here that comes 
from both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, 
it says the terms ``old growth forest'' and ``mature forest'' 
have not been consistently defined. Would you agree with that 
characterization?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, I would.
    Mr. Tiffany. Because just this past week, some constituents 
up in my district posed that question to staff, and they did 
not have an answer, similar to what you are saying here. It is 
not defined, correct?
    Mr. Moore. I say it is defined by different species. 
Different species have different age classes of what is 
considered old growth.
    Mr. Tiffany. But it is not defined, as it says in----
    Mr. Moore. Yes, just trying to keep it simple, there is no 
agreed-upon, I think, generally agreed-upon definition, other 
than if you look at it by species, which varies.
    Mr. Tiffany. I think the Biden administration came out with 
a Land Management Plan Direction for Old Growth Forest 
Conditions across the National Forest System. Are you familiar 
with that?
    Mr. Moore. I am.
    Mr. Tiffany. And the Forest Service is considering amending 
128 Land Management Plans, is that right?
    Mr. Moore. That is correct, yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. And doing it through a single EIS?
    Mr. Moore. You mean for old growth?
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes.
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Is that consistent with the law, to amend 
those 128 Land Management Plans, individual Land Management 
Plans, with one EIS?
    Mr. Moore. Yes. I mean, obviously, we can do that. But you 
have to amend all 128 plans.
    Right now, one of the bigger challenges we have with old 
growth is there is no consistent way of how we manage old 
growth. So, this Forest Plan amendment is to come up with a 
framework for how we manage old growth, but also leave 
flexibility at the local level to make some decisions in how it 
is managed.
    Mr. Tiffany. Are you familiar with the 2012 Planning Rule?
    Mr. Moore. I used to be. Somewhat still.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes. I mean, it rings a bell, right? I am not 
asking you for specifics here, trying to trap you, anything 
like that.
    It says here among the 2012 rule's purposes was to provide 
for a transparent, coordinated process. Whereas, with what is 
being proposed with this old growth Land Management Plan, it 
says the Forest Service's willingness is to now convert its 
commitment to a transparent, collaborative process. Isn't there 
a distinction between collaboration and coordination?
    Mr. Moore. I mean, I think, generally, yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. I mean, isn't coordination identified in the 
law, that it is a specific process in working with local 
municipalities?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, it is about informing and being informed.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, if 128 Land Management Plans are done 
under one EIS, how are you going to coordinate with all those 
local municipalities?
    Mr. Moore. Well, it is going to be done at the local 
individual forest level. Our approach is we basically 
overhauled the whole planning process within the agency. So, we 
have three planning teams across the country: one in the West, 
one in the Midwest, and one in the East. And these teams will 
be doing most of the legwork on the analysis.
    And a part of the issue we have had in the agency, too, is 
that you don't have the skill set at every forest to do this, 
and there is so much other work to be done. So, these national 
teams or these regional teams will take most of the brunt of 
the work from the forest, so they are not overly encumbered 
with a forest plan revision.
    Mr. Tiffany. Let's take one, for example, the Chequamegon-
Nicolet National Forest in Wisconsin. Do you fully commit to 
coordinate with local units of government when creating this 
new plan?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, that is an ordinary part of what we should 
be doing out there, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tiffany. Well, those folks are ready, willing, and able 
to work with you in regards to this, and I appreciate you 
making that commitment.
    And now, I am way overboard on Wisconsin time here, so I 
appreciate that you would take the additional time here to be 
as forthright as possible, and I appreciate you taking the time 
this morning, Chief Moore, to set a little time aside to have a 
real personal discussion in regards to this stuff.
    We will be doing some follow-up. We appreciate you and your 
staff engaging with us in regards to that, because we are 
interested. It is clear that you are sincere about wanting to 
have the best outcomes possible, and we want to work with you 
to be able to do that.
    Members of the Subcommittee may have some additional 
questions for you, and we will ask that the witness respond to 
these in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the 
Subcommittee must submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 
5 p.m. on Friday, June 7, 2024. The hearing record will be held 
open for 10 business days for those responses.
    And if there is no further business, it sure doesn't appear 
so, we are pretty lonely here, Mr. Chief, without objection, 
the Subcommittee on Federal Lands stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]