"Promoting Forest Health and Resiliency Through Improved Active Management"

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                      PROMOTING FOREST HEALTH AND5                   RESILIENCY THROUGH IMPROVED ACTIVE6                               MANAGEMENT78=======================================================================910                                HEARING1112                               BEFORE THE1314               SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY AND HORTICULTURE1516                                 OF THE1718                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE19                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES2021                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2223                             FIRST SESSION24                               __________2526                           SEPTEMBER 10, 202527                               __________2829                           Serial No. 119-143031               [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3233          Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture34                         agriculture.house.gov3536                                ______3738                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE394061-970 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 20254142                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE4344                 GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman4546FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota, Ranking47AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia, Vice          Minority Member48  Chairman                           DAVID SCOTT, Georgia49ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  JIM COSTA, California50SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts51DOUG LaMALFA, California             ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina52DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut53TRENT KELLY, Mississippi             SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio, Vice54DON BACON, Nebraska                  Ranking Minority Member55MIKE BOST, Illinois                  SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas56DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota          ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon57JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana              DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina58TRACEY MANN, Kansas                  JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii59RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa                 NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois60MARY E. MILLER, Illinois             ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois61BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico62KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois63BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota              SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan64JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee              ADAM GRAY, California65RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 KRISTEN McDONALD RIVET, Michigan66MONICA De La CRUZ, Texas             SHOMARI FIGURES, Alabama67ZACHARY NUNN, Iowa                   EUGENE SIMON VINDMAN, Virginia68DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin         JOSH RILEY, New York69DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington             JOHN W. MANNION, New York70TONY WIED, Wisconsin                 APRIL McCLAIN DELANEY, Maryland71ROBERT P. BRESNAHAN, Jr.,            CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine72Pennsylvania                         SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California73MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana74MARK HARRIS, North Carolina75DAVID J. TAYLOR, Ohio76                                 ______7778                     Parish Braden, Staff Director79                 Brian Sowyrda, Minority Staff Director80                                 ______8182               Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture8384                   DOUG LaMALFA, California, Chairman8586BARRY MOORE, Alabama, Vice Chair     ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon, Ranking87DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina           Minority Member88TRENT KELLY, Mississippi             JIM COSTA, California89JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana              GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico90DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington             ADAM GRAY, California91TONY WIED, Wisconsin                 JOSH RILEY, New York, Vice Ranking92                                     Minority Member93                                     CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine9495                                  (ii)9697                             C O N T E N T S9899                               ----------100                                                                   Page101Craig, Hon. Angie, a Representative in Congress from Minnesota,102  opening statement..............................................     7103    Prepared statement...........................................     9104LaMalfa, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from California,105  opening statement..............................................     1106    Prepared statement...........................................     3107Salinas, Hon. Andrea, a Representative in Congress from Oregon,108  opening statement..............................................     4109    Prepared statement...........................................     5110Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from111  Pennsylvania, opening statement................................     6112    Prepared statement...........................................     7113114                               Witnesses115116Barnes, Jamie, Director/State Forester, Utah Department of117  Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands,118  Salt Lake City, UT; on Behalf of National Association of State119  Foresters......................................................    12120    Prepared statement...........................................    13121Dane, Bradley ``Scott'', Executive Director, American Loggers122  Council, Gilbert, MN...........................................    17123    Prepared statement...........................................    19124Monohan, Ph.D., Carrie, Director of Natural Resources, Mooretown125  Rancheria of Maidu Indians, Oroville, CA.......................    31126    Prepared statement...........................................    32127DeLuca, Ph.D., Thomas H., Dean, College of Forestry, Oregon State128  University; Director, Oregon Forest Research Laboratory, OSU,129  Corvallis, OR..................................................    34130    Prepared statement...........................................    36131132                      PROMOTING FOREST HEALTH AND133                   RESILIENCY THROUGH IMPROVED ACTIVE134                               MANAGEMENT135136                               ----------137138                     WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2025139140                  House of Representatives,141                 Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture,142                                  Committee on Agriculture,143                                                   Washington, D.C.144    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in145Room 1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doug LaMalfa146[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.147    Members present: Representatives LaMalfa, Moore, Baird,148Wied, Thompson (ex officio), Salinas, Costa, Riley, and Craig149(ex officio).150    Staff present: John Busovsky, Laurel Lee Chatham, John151Hendrix, Sofia Jones, John Konya, Ari Perlmutter, Emma Simon,152Michael Stein, and Jackson Blodgett.153154         OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LaMALFA, A155         REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA156157    The Chairman. Welcome. Thank you for joining our hearing158today entitled, Promoting Forest Health and Resiliency Through159Improved Active Management. After brief opening remarks,160Members will receive testimony from our witnesses today, and161then the hearing will be open to questions.162    So, in consultation with the Ranking Member and pursuant to163Rule XI(e)(1), I want to make Members of the Subcommittee aware164that other Members of the full Committee may join us today.165    So, with that, once again, welcome. Today, we will be166hearing from a panel of witnesses to discuss the National167Forest System, state and private forests, and the many issues168before the U.S. Forest Service and the communities located in169those forested areas. Today's hearing is also an opportunity to170receive feedback on these important issues and recommendations171on what Congress could do to encourage more active management172of our forests, to restore them, improve forest health,173encourage the use of more forest products, and, very174importantly, reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire in175areas that are at the highest risk of these ever-present176dangers.177    That last part is especially important in the West. We178continue to witness devastating wildfires year after year as179millions of acres of forestland are burned annually--the loss180of forests, homes, property, wildlife, the environmental181damage--so much more than we should be enduring, so it,182unfortunately, continues to be a challenge as we constantly183face this in the West. The increased severity of the impacts of184wildfires is the result of inadequate management and, in some185cases, outright mismanagement of our forestlands over decades.186In this year alone, more than 47,000 wildfires in the U.S. have187burned more than 4 million acres of land. As of yesterday, we188have some 66 large fires currently burning in 12 states,189including--in the West: Idaho, California, Montana, Washington,190Oregon, and several others. Earlier in the year, we saw an191unprecedented urban fire situation in southern California,192which is, indeed, an unfortunate example of what if we aren't193prepared for these threats in all aspects.194    What was once a fire season, especially in southern195California, seems to be now more of a fire year, a constant196year-round effect. Even now, fires rage across the northern and197eastern parts of my own district, my colleagues in Oregon,198Nevada, as we named them off, burning thousands of acres of199land in devastating wildfires that, ultimately, are200preventable. It is a crisis. More needs to be done to increase201the pace and scale of forest management and reduce the levels202of hazardous fuels across our forests. We need every tool in203the toolbox. We need to be thinking about partnerships and204management on a much larger scale than we have in the recent205past.206    I appreciate many of the actions taken by this207Administration this year to do just that, specifically, the208identification of new acreage in need of treatment and plans to209ramp up the use of emergency authorities. Those are good210starts. Another promising initiative is the effort to increase211timber harvest levels above the current targets. For decades,212harvesting National Forests has remained far below previous213levels and below the amount authorized in current plans.214Increasing these goals will help support forest products, rural215communities, and overall management of the National Forest216System. With all that in mind, Congress still has much more to217do to support the agency, the states, counties, Tribes, and218other partners to accelerate forest management.219    Last year's House farm bill--the Farm, Food, and National220Security Act of 2024 (H.R. 8467, 118th Congress) provided a221variety of new tools and authorities intended to expand222partnerships, continue cross-boundary management, improve223environmental processes, and help grow new markets for forest224products. These are positive reforms that will help land225managers restore our forests and protect communities by226reducing the threat of wildfire. I support these reforms. I am227hopeful this Committee and Congress will soon pass a new farm228bill and see these many improvements signed into law.229    Thank you to all our witnesses for being here today, as230well as our colleagues on the panel. Your experience and231testimony as witnesses are invaluable as this Committee, and as232Congress, considers ways to better manage our forests and truly233improve wildlife conditions. And with that, I would like to234also specifically acknowledge from my home district, Carrie235Monohan from Mooretown Rancheria, for traveling all the way236from California. I know what that is like. Welcome to all of237our witnesses, and we look forward to your testimony and238perspectives.239    [The prepared statement of Mr. LaMalfa follows:]240241 Prepared Statement of Hon. Doug LaMalfa, a Representative in Congress242                            from California243244    Good morning, everyone. Welcome to today's Forestry and245Horticulture Subcommittee hearing titled ``Promoting Forest Health and246Resiliency Through Improved Active Management.''247    Today we will be hearing from a panel of witnesses to discuss the248National Forest System, state and private forests, and the many issues249before the U.S. Forest Service and communities located in forested250areas.251    Today's hearing is also an opportunity to receive feedback on these252important issues and recommendations on what Congress can do to253encourage more active management of our forests to restore them,254improve forest health, encourage the use of more forest products, and255reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire in areas that are at highest256risk of these ever-present disasters.257    That last part is especially important. In the West, we continue to258witness devastating wildfires year after year as millions of acres of259forestland are burned annually. The loss of forests, homes and260property, and unfortunately lives continues to be a challenge we261constantly face in the West.262    The increased severity and impacts of wildfires is the result of263inadequate management, and in some cases, outright mismanagement of our264forestlands over decades.265    In this year alone, more than 47,000 wildfires in the U.S. have266burned more than 4 million acres of land. As of yesterday, we have some26766 large fires currently burning in 12 states; including Idaho,268California, Montana, Washington, Oregon, and several others.269    Earlier in the year, we saw the unprecedented urban fires in270southern California, which was an unfortunate example of what can271happen if we aren't prepared for these threats. What was once a fire272season, is now more of a fire year.273    Even now fires rage across the northern and eastern parts of my274district, burning thousands of acres of land in devastating wildfires275that ultimately are preventable.276    This is a crisis and more needs to be done to increase the pace and277scale of forest management and reduce the levels of hazardous fuels278across our forests.279    We need every tool in the toolbox; and we need to be thinking about280partnerships and management on a much larger scale than we have in the281past.282    I appreciate many of the actions that the Trump Administration has283taken this year to do just that. Specifically, the identification of284new acreage in need of treatment and plans to ramp up the use of285emergency authorities are good starts.286    Another promising initiative is the effort to increase timber287harvest levels above the current targets. For decades, harvesting in288the National Forest System has remained far below previous levels, and289below the amount authorized in current plans.290    Increasing those goals will help support forest products, rural291communities, and the overall management of the National Forest System.292    With that all in mind, Congress still has much more to do to293support the agency, the states, counties, Tribes, and other partners to294accelerate forest management.295    Last year's House farm bill--the Farm, Food and National Security296Act--provided a variety of new tools and authorities intended to expand297partnerships, continue cross-boundary management, improve environmental298processes, and help grow new markets for forest products.299    These are positive reforms that will help land managers restore our300forests and protect communities by reducing the threat of wildfire.301    I support these reforms and am hopeful this Committee and Congress302will soon pass a new farm bill and see these many improvements signed303into law.304    Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today. Your305experience and testimony are invaluable as this Committee and Congress306consider ways to better manage our forests and truly improve wildfire307conditions.308    I'd also like to specifically acknowledge Dr. Carrie Monohan with309the Mooretown Rancheria for traveling all the way from California to be310here today.311    Welcome to all of our witnesses, and we look forward to your312testimony and perspectives.313    With that, I will yield to Ranking Member Salinas for any opening314remarks she would like to provide.315316    The Chairman. I will now yield to our Ranking Member317Salinas for any her opening remarks.318319          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANDREA SALINAS, A320            REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM OREGON321322    Ms. Salinas. Well, thank you, Chairman LaMalfa, for323convening us today, and thank you to our witnesses for being324here and making the trek out. And I especially want to thank325Dean DeLuca, who has consistently provided my team and me with326valuable input that informs our work here in Washington. I know327that Dean's testimony and answers today, along with the328perspectives of our other distinguished witnesses, will give329this Subcommittee important insights as we consider the future330of active forest management across the country.331    I want to be clear at the outset of this hearing, active,332science-based management is not about clear-cutting large333swaths of forests. It is about targeted thinning, prescribed334fire, fuels reduction, and other practices that restore balance335to ecosystems and reduce wildfire risks to our communities. We336can prevent and combat catastrophic wildfires without337irreparably harming and damaging the habitat and ecosystems we338require to survive as humans. Unfortunately, even as the need339for active management has grown more urgent, recent actions by340the Trump Administration have undermined the Forest Service's341ability to actually meet that challenge. The Department of342Agriculture's proposed reorganization, which would centralize343staff and research in distant hubs, threatens to strip away344local expertise and the trusted partnerships that are essential345for success. That includes longstanding collaborations with346institutions like the Oregon State University. Workforce347reductions have only worsened the problem. As many as 5,000348Forest Service employees have been lost this year when the349agency already isn't meeting its needed staffing requirements.350These personnel cuts have primarily impacted staff who were351relatively new to their roles, as well as the agency's most352experienced staff nearing the end of their careers. The result353is critical gaps in knowledge, research, and local capacity at354the very moment when we should be scaling up all of these355efforts.356    On top of these workforce challenges, the Trump357Administration's budget proposes deep reductions to the very358programs that help state, Tribal, and private partners carry359out active management. These are the programs that fund360cooperative agreements, technical assistance, and cross-361boundary projects. Cutting them undermines the ability of362states and Tribes to match Federal efforts on the ground,363weakening the partnerships we know are essential for forest364health.365    That leads me to a larger point. The success of active366forest management depends on partnerships. Tribes, states and367local governments, universities, and private landowners all368bring unique tools and expertise to this work. Programs like369Good Neighbor Authority, Service First agreements, and shared370stewardship show what is possible when we work together. In371Oregon, we have seen firsthand how impactful these partnerships372can be, and institutions like Oregon State have proven how373seamlessly they can work with their Federal partners. But374instead of strengthening these partnerships, the Trump375Administration has pursued theatrical actions that will376undermine our ability to meaningfully improve the health and377resilience of our forests.378    One example is Secretary Rollins' repeal of the 2001379Roadless Rule, which she justified as a way to expand active380management and reduce wildfire risk. The truth is that roadless381areas are remote and costly to access. They are not landscapes382where decades of logging and deferred management have led to383overstock and increased fire risk. They are not where wildfire384poses the greatest threat to communities, people, and property.385In fact, research shows that fire risk only increases in areas386with roads and human activities. Our priority must be to focus387on active management where the risk is highest, not to rescind388protections in hopes of opening up new areas for industrial389access.390    The Subcommittee has a responsibility to ensure that the391Forest Service has the resources, workforce, and research392capacity it needs to carry out its mission and ensure the393health and resilience of our nation's forestlands. We must394advance policies in the upcoming farm bill and beyond that395expand science-informed management, strengthen partnerships,396and keep our focus squarely on protecting people, communities,397and ecosystems at risk. I look forward to hearing from our398witnesses and working together to chart a path forward that399will help us achieve these goals.400    Thank you so much, and I yield back.401    [The prepared statement of Ms. Salinas follows:]402403Prepared Statement of Hon. Andrea Salinas, a Representative in Congress404                              from Oregon405406    Thank you, Chairman LaMalfa, for convening us today, and thank you407to our witnesses for making the trip.408    I especially want to thank Dean DeLuca, who has consistently409provided my team and me with valuable input that informs our work here410in Washington. I know the Dean's testimony and answers today, along411with the perspectives of our other distinguished witnesses, will give412this Subcommittee important insights as we consider the future of413active forest management in this country.414    I want to be clear at the outset of this hearing--active, science-415based management is not about clear-cutting large swaths of forest. It416is about targeted thinning, prescribed fire, fuels reduction, and other417practices that restore balance to ecosystems and reduce wildfire risks418to communities. We can prevent and combat catastrophic wildfires419without irreparably damaging the habitat and ecosystems we require to420survive as humans.421    Unfortunately, even as the need for active management has grown422more urgent, recent actions by the Trump Administration have undermined423the Forest Service's ability to meet that challenge.424    The Department of Agriculture's proposed reorganization, which425would centralize staff and research in distant hubs, threatens to strip426away local expertise and trusted partnerships that are essential for427success. That includes long-standing collaborations with institutions428like Oregon State University.429    Workforce reductions have only worsened the problem. As many as4305,000 Forest Service employees have been lost this year, when the431agency already isn't meeting it's needed staffing requirements. These432personnel cuts have primarily impacted staff who were relatively new to433their roles, as well as the agency's most experienced staff nearing the434end of their careers. The result is critical gaps in knowledge,435research, and local capacity at the very moment when we should be436scaling up our efforts.437    On top of these workforce challenges, the Trump Administration's438budget proposes deep reductions to the very programs that help state,439Tribal, and private partners carry out active management. These are the440programs that fund cooperative agreements, technical assistance, and441cross-boundary projects. Cutting them undermines the ability of states442and Tribes to match Federal efforts on the ground, weakening the443partnerships we know are essential for forest health.444    That leads me to a larger point--the success of active forest445management depends on partnerships. Tribes, states, local governments,446universities, and private landowners all bring unique tools and447expertise. Programs like Good Neighbor Authority, Service First448agreements, and shared stewardship show what's possible when we work449together. In Oregon, we have seen firsthand how impactful these450partnerships can be, and institutions like Oregon State have proven how451seamlessly they can work with their Federal partners.452    But, instead of strengthening these partnerships, the Trump453Administration has pursued theatrical actions that will undermine our454ability to meaningfully improve the health and resilience of our455forests.456    One example is Secretary Rollins's repeal of the 2001 Roadless457Rule, which she has justified as a way to expand active management and458reduce wildfire risk.459    The truth is that roadless areas are remote and costly to access.460They are not the landscapes where decades of logging and deferred461management have led to overstock and increased fire risk. They are not462where wildfire poses the greatest threat to communities, people, and463property. In fact, research shows that fire risk only increases in464areas with roads and human activities. Our priority must be to focus on465active management where the risk is highest, not to rescind protections466in hopes of opening new areas for industrial access.467    This Subcommittee has a responsibility to ensure the Forest Service468has the resources, workforce, and research capacity it needs to carry469out its mission and ensure the health and resilience of our nation's470forestlands. We must advance policies in the upcoming farm bill and471beyond that expand science-informed management, strengthen472partnerships, and keep our focus squarely on protecting people,473communities, and ecosystems at risk.474    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and working together475to chart a path forward that will help us achieve these goals.476    Thank you, and I yield back.477478    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Salinas. We will recognize our479Chairman of our Agriculture Committee, Mr. Thompson, for his480comments.481482         OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A483         REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA484485    Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking486Member, and thanks to our witnesses for being here today.487Chairman and Ranking Member, great job with the folks you have488brought to the table for this hearing. I am excited to read489their testimony. I am excited to hear from them. Coming to490Washington is never easy, but it is so important for you to be491here and to share your perspectives today, to bring your492expertise.493    For decades, our nation's forests have seen a decline in494forest health due to a lack of management, invasive species495outbreaks, overgrowth, and other factors. I have been proud of496the work this Committee has done over the past several farm497bill cycles to provide the Forest Service with a number of498tools and authorities intending to encourage more active499management, more partnerships, and the use of forest products,500expanding the markets. For example, this includes the501authorization of the Good Neighbor, authorities for cross-502boundary projects, and expanded categorical exclusions such as503insect and disease CEs, just to name a few. These are504commonsense reforms that will help encourage more landscape-505scaled management of the National Forest System and adjacent506forestlands.507    Now, given the scale of the restoration and the fuels508reduction needed on millions of acres, we must be thinking509about management on a much larger landscape scale. Now, while I510remain encouraged by many of the President's Executive Orders511and management actions proposed by the Forest Service,512particularly the efforts to increase harvest above the current513targets, this Committee must also do its part to support the514agency to help get more work on the ground as quickly and as515effectively as possible. Last year, this Committee favorably516reported the Farm, Food, and National Security Act to deliver a517new farm bill for rural America. Title VIII, the forestry518title, expanded on the good work that this Committee has done519in the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills in a variety of ways to520encourage more management, more market opportunities for forest521products, and commonsense improvements to environmental522processes and Forest Service administration. We are now 2 years523past the original expiration of the 2018 Farm Bill, and the524time to act on a new law is now.525    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how we can526encourage and improve forest health and resiliency and what527this Committee should also be thinking about to further support528forest managers and rural communities. And with that, Mr.529Chairman, I yield back.530    [The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]531532Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress533                           from Pennsylvania534535    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our witnesses for being536here today.537    Coming to Washington is never easy but it is so important for you538to be here and share your perspectives today.539    For decades, our nation's forests have seen a decline in forest540health due to a lack of management, invasive species outbreaks,541overgrowth, and other factors.542    I have been proud of the work this Committee has done over the past543several farm bill cycles to provide the Forest Service with a number of544new tools and authorities intending to encourage more active545management, more partnerships, and the use of forest products.546    For example, this includes the authorization of Good Neighbor,547authorities for cross-boundary projects, and expanded categorical548exclusions such as the insect and disease CE, just to name a few.549    These are commonsense reforms that will help encourage more550landscape-scale management of the National Forest System and adjacent551forestlands. Given the scale of the restoration and fuels reduction552needed on millions of acres, we must be thinking about management on a553much larger landscape scale.554    While I remain encouraged by many of the President's Executive555Orders and management actions proposed by the Forest Service,556particularly the efforts to increase harvest above the current targets,557this Committee must also do it's part to support the agency to help get558this more work on the ground as quickly and effectively as possible.559    Last year, this Committee favorably reported the Farm, Food, and560National Security Act to deliver a new farm bill for rural America.561    Title VIII expanded on the good work this Committee has done in562prior farm bills in a variety of ways to encourage more management,563more market opportunities for forest products, and commonsense564improvements to environmental processes and Forest Service565administration.566    We're now 2 years past the original expiration of the 2018 Farm567Bill and the time to act on a new law is now.568    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how we can569encourage improved forest health and resiliency, and what this570Committee should also be thinking about to further support forest571managers and rural communities.572    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.573574    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will recognize our575Ranking Member, Angie Craig, for any comments she would have to576make.577578            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANGIE CRAIG, A579            REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA580581    Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you582to my colleagues for organizing this hearing, and especially to583our witnesses for taking time out of your busy schedules to be584here today.585    I am pleased to see the Committee engage more on forestry586issues and, specifically, the current conversation about the587future of the U.S. Forest Service. I cannot overstate my588concern over the hollowing out of the Forest Service in recent589months. We have lost countless dedicated public servants, many590of whom held wildfire certifications, served on the line during591fire season, and played essential support roles for the592agency's core functions. In total, the agency has lost more593than 5,000 employees, amounting to nearly 15 percent of the594total workforce. I hope our witnesses will speak to the effect595this downsizing is having or may have on the Forest Service's596ability to fulfill its critical mission.597    Many of this Administration's policies regarding the Forest598Service are deeply concerning. They have recklessly proposed599slashing Federal funding for state, Tribal, and private600forestry programs that provide critical technical and financial601assistance to forest landowners and land managers helping to602conserve our nation's forests and protect vulnerable603communities from wildfire. I know we have witnesses here today604that can share with us the importance of these farm bill-605authorized programs. The President's budget also included the606total elimination of funding for all but one of the Forest607Service's research and development programs. The world-class608scientists at Forest Service research stations throughout the609country work every day to develop early warning technology that610keeps our communities and firefighters on the frontlines safe.611They analyze data to identify where we are most vulnerable to612fire, landslides, or insect and disease outbreaks, and test613responses so that we can protect our communities with evidence-614based management practices. My colleagues on this Subcommittee615cannot ignore the risk this Administration is taking here in616managing these critical issues.617    Proposals to move wildfire activity out of the Forest618Service, especially during an active fire season, are ill619informed and threaten the agency's comprehensive approach to620forest management. Additionally, the Administration's621announcement to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule puts our forests622at greater risk of wildfire, watershed degradation, and623wildlife habitat loss. There are more high-priority acres that624need management to reduce these risks than we currently have625capacity to treat. We should target these rather than reopening626a decades-old political fight that is sure to result in627litigation. I share this Administration's goal to increase628active management on Federal lands, and I agree that more629board-feet need to come off our National Forests to reduce the630risk of mega-fires, which has the added benefit of supporting631the wood products industry. But, do we even have the staff632capacity to accomplish our timber goals? And if we eliminate633Forest Service R&D, will the wood products industry end up634suffering more than it benefits from changes to Federal policy?635More recently, the USDA's half-baked reorganization plan636promises to consolidate forestry research scientists and637jeopardizes the work they are doing with universities and other638partners throughout the country.639    Simply put, all these decisions undermine the Forest640Service's statutory requirement to manage our nation's forests641to meet the needs of present and future generations. A 5 year642farm bill represents a serious opportunity in front of this643Committee to not only address the commonsense issues that644everyone agrees need to be made, but also the challenges and645concerns which undermine the Forest Service's mission and646threaten forests across the country. Only if a farm bill647process is truly and meaningfully bipartisan and devoid of648poison pills will we be able to provide stability to the Forest649Service, clarify Congressional intent on the agency's650operations, and challenge some of the Administration's most651ill-informed and rash decisions. I look forward to working with652my colleagues, our witnesses, and the broader forestry653community on the way forward.654    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.655    [The prepared statement of Ms. Craig follows:]656657 Prepared Statement of Hon. Angie Craig, a Representative in Congress658                             from Minnesota659660    Thank you to my colleagues for organizing this hearing and to our661witnesses for taking time out of your busy schedules to be here today.662I am pleased to see this Committee engage more on forestry issues, and663specifically the current conversation about the future of the U.S.664Forest Service.665    I cannot overstate my concern over the hollowing out of the Forest666Service in recent months. We have lost countless dedicated public667servants, many of whom held wildfire certifications, served on the line668during fire season and played essential support roles for the agency's669core functions. In total, the agency has lost more than 5,000670employees, amounting to nearly 15 percent of the total workforce. I671hope our witnesses will speak to the effect this downsizing is having672or may have on the Forest Service's ability to fulfill its critical673mission.674    Many of this Administration's policies regarding the Forest Service675are deeply concerning. They have recklessly proposed slashing Federal676funding for state, Tribal and private forestry programs that provide677critical technical and financial assistance to forest landowners and678land managers helping to conserve our nation's forests and protect679vulnerable communities from wildfire. I know we have witnesses here680today that can share with us the importance of these farm bill-681authorized programs.682    The President's budget request also included the total elimination683of funding for all but one of the Forest Service's research and684development programs. The world class scientists at Forest Service685research stations throughout this country work every day to develop686early warning technology that keeps our communities and firefighters on687the front line safe. They analyze data to identify where we are most688vulnerable to fire, landslides or insect and disease outbreaks and test689responses so that we can protect our communities with evidence-based690management practices. My Republican colleagues on this Subcommittee691cannot ignore the risks this Administration is taking here in managing692these critical issues.693    Proposals to move wildfire activity out of the Forest Service,694especially during an active fire season, are ill-informed and threaten695the agency's comprehensive approach to forest management.696    Additionally, the Administration's announcement to rescind the 2001697Roadless Rule puts our forests at greater risk of wildfire, watershed698degradation and wildlife habitat loss. There are more high-priority699acres that need management to reduce these risks than we currently have700capacity to treat. We should target these rather than reopening a701decades old political fight that is sure to result in litigation. I702share this Administration's goal to increase active management on703Federal lands. And I agree that more board-feet need to come off our704National Forests to reduce the risk of mega-fires, which has the added705benefit of supporting the wood products industry. But do we even have706the staff capacity to accomplish our timber goals? And if we eliminate707Forest Service R&D, will the wood products industry end up suffering708more than it benefits from changes to Federal policy?709    Most recently, the USDA's half-baked reorganization plan promises710to consolidate forestry research scientists and jeopardizes the work711they're doing with universities and other partners throughout the712country. Simply put, all these decisions undermine the Forest Service's713statutory requirement to manage our nation's forests to meet the needs714of present and future generations.715    A 5 year farm bill represents a serious opportunity in front of716this Committee to not only address the common-sense issues that717everyone agrees need to be made, but also the challenges and concerns718which undermine the Forest Service's mission and threaten forests719across the country. Only if a farm bill process is truly and720meaningfully bipartisan and devoid of poison pills will we be able to721provide stability to the Forest Service, clarify Congressional intent722on the agency's operations and challenge some of the Administration's723most rash decisions. I look forward to working with my colleagues, our724witnesses and the broader forestry community on the way forward.725    Thank you and I yield back.726727    The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Craig. Normally,728this would be the time I would have the witnesses give their729testimony, but we have multiple committees today, so I would730like to have the opportunity for our Members here to be able to731get their work in here before they would have to go. So, I am732going to recognize Mr. Moore for 5 minutes with a statement and733questions of the panel, so, panel, be ready, and we will get to734your comments in a moment here. Thank you.735    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our736witnesses for being here today.737    I recently sat down for a conversation about the future of738space mining and how we might one day source minerals and739metals from beyond Earth to fuel innovation here at home, but740there is one resource the scientists have yet to find in space,741and that is wood. The Lord put our forests right here on Earth,742and they remain one of the most renewable, reliable resources743we have been blessed with, all while supporting jobs,744communities, and industries across Alabama and our entire745nation. Mr. Dane, your testimony described the Fix Our Forests746Act (H.R. 471) as comprehensive forest management. In your747view, what are the most important forest management reforms748provided by that legislation or the Farm, Food, and National749Security Act?750    Mr. Dane. Mr. Chairman, Committee, thank you very much for751the opportunity to talk about that. The Fix Our Forests Act,752first of all, is a forest management and a wildfire mitigation753piece of legislation. The American--the logging industry are754just merely tools to help accomplish those objectives in the755Fix Our Forests Act. Now, there are quite a few things that are756included in the Fix Our Forests Act. One of them--I know this757somewhat controversial--is litigation reform, but there is no758denying the fact that litigation has dragged out billions of759board-feet of timber management for protracted periods of time760and resulted in many lost opportunities, so litigation reform761is important.762    Let me see here. The Fix Our Forests Act, obviously they763are looking at increasing the scope and scale--or pace and764scale of forest management, and that is extremely critical as765well. The western states, particularly, that are dependent upon766Federal timber, have been choked out in many instances, to the767point where the supply was not there to support the mills768remaining viable. In California alone, there were 150 mills 20,76925 years ago. They are down to 27 mills there. So, increasing770the available timber supply is vital to supporting the771infrastructure that is necessary for forest management. As an772example, if there is no market, there is no management.773    Mr. Moore. So, the litigation itself is slowing the process774of getting the timber to the mills. Is that kind of what I am775understanding, Mr. Dane? Is that part of it?776    Mr. Dane. Yes.777    Mr. Moore. What else is causing issues?778    Mr. Dane. That is part of it. I mean, it drags it out for779multiple years. And as an example, fire salvage timber that is780put up for sale can be dragged out 6 years before it can781actually go to market. Eighteen months after the fire goes782through, the value of the timber is useless except for anything783more than biomass, so if we could salvage that within that 18784month period, we could add value to it and utilize that timber.785That is an example.786    Mr. Moore. Gotcha. Mr. Dane, retaining saw mills,787obviously, and increase in forest product infrastructure788continues to be a challenge in many areas. Given that the789industry is a key partner in managing forests, do you think790there are ways that we can help sustain and support new791processing and infrastructure? I think the lawsuits are part of792that, but what else do you think we might could do from793Congress' standpoint to help?794    Mr. Dane. Well, I think that a major step with this795Administration has occurred with the trade investigations and796the imports. As an example, the United States' sawmills are797operating at 72 percent capacity right now, and they can798obviously go up to 85+ percent capacity. We are the largest799importer of softwood lumber in the world right now. We can800produce more domestically. And as another example, Brazil is801exporting plywood to the United States while the United States802is closing plywood mills. So, trade is a very big factor803regarding increasing market share and supporting the current804infrastructure.805    Mr. Moore. All right. Ms. Barnes, one last question. I have806about 45 seconds. We know coordination between state, local,807and Federal land managers and fire responders is an ongoing808workload. Can you tell us more about how this coordination809occurs before, during, and after a fire, and are there specific810barriers that hinder the cooperation?811    Ms. Barnes. Yes. Thank you for the question. Interagency812coordination is key, especially in the State of Utah. State,813local, and Federal partners work together in a seamless space814of how to respond to wildfires and how to do forest management.815There are things that can hinder that at times based on816resource capacity, based on jurisdictional boundaries, but in817Utah, we are pretty good at responding to fires and working in818a seamless capacity. I like to tell people that wildfire is one819thing that we can't do alone. It takes all of us to do it, so820bringing in that interagency coordination from a local level821and to a state level and also a Federal level is something that822is very important, and it is something that we have to continue823to do.824    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.825    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Good luck in the826markup.827    All right. Now, we will go back to the regularly-scheduled828programming here, so, again, panelists, thank you for joining829us. You know the rules. Each of you will have 5 minutes, and so830just watch the timer and watch the colors on the stoplight, and831you will know what to do.832    So, let me first introduce Ms. Jamie Barnes, the Utah State833Forester in the Division of Forestry Fire and State Lands of834the Utah Department of Natural Resources. So, take it away, 5835minutes.836837    STATEMENT OF JAMIE BARNES,  DIRECTOR/STATE  FORESTER,838     UTAH  DEPARTMENT  OF NATURAL RESOURCES,  DIVISION OF839     FORESTRY, FIRE AND STATE LANDS,  SALT LAKE CITY, UT;840     ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS841842    Ms. Barnes. Thank you, Chairman LaMalfa, and Ranking Member843Salinas, and Members of the Subcommittee, for holding this844hearing today and for the opportunity to testify before you on845behalf of the National Association of State Foresters. My name846is Jamie Barnes. I am the State Forester and Director of the847Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands in Utah. In my role,848I am responsible for overseeing forest health, and responding849to wildfires and managing sovereign lands in Utah. Established850in 1920, the National Association of State Foresters is851composed of the directors of forestry agencies in 50 states,852D.C., and all the U.S. Territories, and nations in compacts of853free association.854    State Foresters have been tasked with implementing National855Forest policy priorities for over a century, providing856technical assistance to landowners, and managing 76 million857acres of state-owned forested land that supply critical timber.858State Foresters also work cooperatively to improve the859resilience and productivity of Federal lands. State Foresters860work to advance resilient landscapes and provide effective861wildfire response across 1.5 billion acres. NASF, the only non-862Federal entity on the National Multi-Agency Coordinating Group,863is a critical part of the national interagency fire864coordination that provides response on Federal lands and865manages the nation's largest, most complex fires. State866forestry agencies and local departments respond to 80 percent867of the fires nationwide.868    Under the first Trump Administration, State Foresters869formalized their commitments to greater partnerships through870shared stewardship with the Forest Service and other agencies.871Utah is on our second shared stewardship agreement, the first872being signed in 2019 and the second in 2022. Utah has had great873success bringing partners together and stakeholders together to874focus on the right work in the right place at the right scale.875A total of $30 million has been invested in active forest876management actions, which include work in critical watersheds877that are high risk for wildfires. With President Trump's recent878Executive Orders, there has been a renewed emphasis on the role879of states in assisting with pressing challenges facing our880forests. Utah has taken a proactive approach with the Forest881Service, engaging in conversations around a shared stewardship882agreement or other supported model where we partner together in883land management. Utah values the partnerships we have built in884the state, and we support carrying out critical management885objectives together to meet increased acreage targets,886production goals, the ability to better serve our industry887partners and reduce wildfire risk in our rural communities,888revitalizing these communities for our future generations.889    Good Neighbor Authority has been a critical tool for states890to increase the pace and scale of cooperative Federal land891management while providing economic opportunities for rural892communities. Through GNA, western states have completed over89366,000 acres of fuels and forest health projects, 291 timber894sales across 98,000 acres of Federal lands, and generating over895840 million of board-feet of timber. However, the ability for896GNA to meet current national needs is dependent on four levers:897sustaining the state and private forestry programs, integrating898state-Federal project planning, dedicated and predictable899funding for the GNA projects, and state discretion and900operational autonomy under GNA.901    State staff with GNA responsibilities are frequently902supported by a broad range of Federal funding. On average,903state forestry agencies would lose 20 percent of their904workforce capacity if Forest Service and private and state905forestry programs were defunded. In addition, predictable and906increased funding for GNA projects cannot be understated907because not all states have Forest Service lands that have908robust timber markets or marketable timber. Forested lands in909Utah are one of the state's most valuable natural resources.910They provide scenic beauty, wildlife habitat, clean air, and911supply timber products. Most of the forested lands in each of912the states are held by private landowners or by the Forest913Service. In Utah, the Division 6 area offices employs a914forester who works with landowners to provide assistance to915those wishing to utilize or improve their forested lands. This916is made possible through Congressional authorities and funding.917It plays an important role in the work we do in Utah and918creates direct results on the ground that are cross-boundary,919benefiting communities and future generations to come.920    NASF is grateful for the Committee's work this last year on921the farm bill to capture State Foresters' priorities, sustain922the active management for private forested lands, including923authorizing assistance for the State Action Plan, strengthening924our national reforestation capacity by codifying the RNGR, and925NASF looks forward to working with the Committee to address926additional amendments to the Conservation Reserve Program and927the Volunteer Fire Assistance Program. Thank you again for this928opportunity.929    [The prepared statement of Ms. Barnes follows:]930931   Prepared Statement of Jamie Barnes, Director/State Forester, Utah932 Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Fire and State933 Lands, Salt Lake City, UT; on Behalf of National Association of State934                               Foresters935936    The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) is pleased to937provide written testimony to the House Agriculture Subcommittee on938Forestry and Horticulture for this important hearing on Promoting939Forest Health and Resiliency Through Improved Active Management. Thank940you, Chairman LaMalfa, Ranking Member Salinas, and Members of the941Subcommittee for holding this hearing today and for the opportunity to942testify on behalf of NASF.943    Established in 1920, the National Association of State Foresters is944a nonprofit organization composed of the directors of forestry agencies945in the 50 states, five U.S. territories, three nations in compacts of946free association with the U.S., and the District of Columbia. State947Forestry Agencies have been tasked with implementing National Forest948policy priorities for over a century, underpinned by direction and949authorities provided by the House and Senate Agriculture Committee to950achieve the necessary scale and coordination that is otherwise out of951reach. Since the 2008 Farm Bill, this role has been supported by State952Forest Action Plans, guiding State Forestry Agencies in active953management and protection of state and private forests, which encompass954nearly \2/3\ of all forests nationwide. State Foresters provide955technical assistance to private landowners and directly manage 76956million acres of state-owned forestland that supply critical timber for957domestic uses. In addition, State Foresters and their agencies work to958improve the health, resilience, and productivity of Federal lands959through partnerships such as Shared Stewardship Agreements and farm960bill authorities such as Good Neighbor Authority and cross-boundary961hazardous fuel reduction projects.962    In collaboration with local governments and Federal agencies, State963Foresters also work to advance resilient landscapes and fire-adapted964communities and provide safe, effective wildfire response on 1.5965billion acres, a large portion of which is in the wildland-urban966interface. NASF--the only non-Federal partner serving on the National967Multi-Agency Coordinating Group at the National Interagency Fire968Center--is a critical part of the national interagency coordination969that provides response on Federal lands and manages the nation's970largest, most complex fires. Collectively, State Forestry Agencies and971local fire departments respond to 80 percent of fires nationwide and in9722024 over a third of state and local dispatches through the National973Interagency Fire Center were deployed to battle fires on Federal lands.974    As State Forester and Director of the Utah Division of Forestry,975Fire & State Lands, my agency is responsible for forest health,976responding to wildland fires and managing sovereign lands in Utah. In977Utah the approach to fighting wildfire is an interagency model through978coordinated efforts with state, Federal and local partners. This979collaborative framework, referred to as the Cooperative Wildfire980System, helps fund large fires throughout the state but also focuses on981prevention, preparedness and mitigation efforts in exchange for that982ability to delegate.983    Meaningful, landscape-scale active forest management is spurred and984strengthened by Federal investment provided through the farm bill and985conveyed through the USDA Forest Service's State, Private, and Tribal986Forestry mission area, with the Natural Resources Conservation Service987and Farm Service Agency also playing significant partnership roles. We988thank the Committee for their work in the Farm, Food, and National989Security Act of 2024 to capture a number of State Forester priorities990to bring these tools and resources to bear and offer the following991perspectives and priorities as the Committee works towards a 2025 Farm992Bill.993Cooperative Federal Land Management through State Forestry Agencies994    State Forestry Agencies provide boots-on-the-ground capacity to get995the work done quickly and effectively by leveraging a wide range of996investments made through the Forest Service and other Federal partners.997Thanks to the support under the first Trump Administration, over 30998states took the initiative to formalize their commitments to greater999partnership and collaboration through Shared Stewardship Agreements1000with the Forest Service and other agencies. State Forestry Agencies1001have played a vital role in ensuring the success of the collaborative1002shared stewardship framework by coordinating key partners and1003facilitating active management across all ownerships including Federal1004lands.1005    Utah is on our second Shared Stewardship agreement, the first being1006signed in 2019 and the second in 2022. Utah has had great success in1007this area bringing partners and stakeholders to focus on the right1008work, in the right place at the right scale. A total of $30 million has1009been invested in this program in active forest management actions which1010include work in critical watersheds that are at high risk for1011wildfires.1012    With the President's March 2025 Executive Order 14225 Immediate1013Expansion of American Timber Production and the Forest Service National1014Active Management Strategy, there has been renewed emphasis on the role1015of states in assisting with addressing the pressing challenges facing1016our Federal forests, namely reducing catastrophic wildfire risk and1017revitalizing rural economies. NASF supports the Trump Administration's1018bold and proactive approach to forest management and affirms our1019continued commitment to partnering across jurisdictions. Through Good1020Neighbor Authority (GNA) and other authorities, State Forestry Agencies1021are able to support the Forest Service in carrying out critical active1022management treatments to meet domestic timber production goals, support1023industry partners, and reduce wildfire risk across forested landscapes.1024    Utah has taken a proactive approach with the Forest Service1025engaging in conversations around a renewed Shared Stewardship agreement1026or other supported model where we partner together in land management.1027Utah values the partnerships we have built in the state and we support1028carrying out critical management objectives together to meet increased1029acreage targets, production goals, the ability to better serve our1030industry partners and reduce the wildfire risk in our rural communities1031revitalizing these communities for our future generations.1032    GNA has been proven time and again as an effective tool for states1033and the Forest Service to increase the pace and scale of improvements1034to forests and watersheds, reducing wildfire risks, supporting cross-1035boundary projects and coordination, and providing job opportunities for1036rural communities. GNA has been utilized by over \2/3\ of the nation's1037State Forestry Agencies since its enactment in the 2014 Farm Bill. In1038this time, 13 state forestry agencies in the western United States have1039reported a cumulative 170 agreements with the Forest Service,1040completing over 66,000 acres of fuels and forest health projects and1041291 timber sales across almost 98,000 acres. These timber sales have1042generated over 840 million board-feet of timber and a combined net1043value in excess of $80 million.1044    However, the ability for GNA meet the current needs on Federal1045lands is dependent on four critical levers: sustained funding for the1046Forest Service's State, Private, and Tribal Forestry programs,1047integrated state and Federal planning for activities, treatments, and1048long-term goals, dedicated and predictable funding for state GNA1049projects, and state discretion and operational autonomy under GNA to1050act effectively on needed active forest management activities. State1051staff with GNA responsibilities are frequently supported by a broad1052range of Federal funding including state, Private, and Tribal Forestry1053programs, and a recent survey of NASF membership indicated that on1054average State Forestry Agencies would lose 20 percent of their1055workforce capacity if the programs were defunded, with individual1056agency losses as high as 80 percent.1057    Additionally, the role of dedicated and predictable funding for1058State Forestry Agencies to perform GNA cannot be understated,1059especially as not all states and National Forest System lands have1060robust timber markets and/or marketable timber that can sustain a state1061GNA program. Given the Forest Service's request for states to1062contribute to Congress and the Administration's goal of increasing1063timber harvest and mitigating wildfire risk, additional Federal funds1064will be required to bolster state GNA programs and projects. As further1065strides are made between State Forestry Agencies and the Forest Service1066on new Shared Stewardship Agreements and an increased utilization of1067GNA--including the final implementation of the flexibilities provided1068by the EXPLORE Act--we look forward to working with the Committee on1069any statutory amendments for the 2025 Farm Bill to improve the1070effectiveness and efficiency of existing authorities.1071    In addition to GNA, NASF acknowledges and thanks the Committee for1072a number of reauthorizations and expansions of cross-boundary and1073Federal forest management authorities in the Farm, Food, and National1074Security Act of 2024, including:10751076   Reauthorization of Cross-boundary Hazardous Fuel Reduction1077        Projects (Section 8202)--The threat posed by wildland fire1078        requires a comprehensive all-lands approach to proactive forest1079        management and prevent the spread of wildfire between1080        jurisdictions. First championed by then-Senator Ted Stevens in1081        Fiscal Year 2002, cross-boundary hazardous fuels reduction1082        funding is allocated by Congressional direction to facilitate1083        coordinated fuels reduction on private lands in proximity to1084        National Forest System lands. This critical funding has1085        provided flexibility for the Forest Service to use the money1086        where it provides the most benefit for community protection.1087        With inconsistent national distribution of this capacity under1088        the Fiscal Year 2025 Continuing Resolution, we look forward to1089        working with the Committee to reauthorize this authority in the1090        2025 Farm Bill.10911092   Amending the Definition of At-Risk Community (Section1093        8201)--The Healthy Forest Restoration Act contains a1094        problematic definition for ``at-risk community'' which is1095        restricted to wildland urban interface communities only within1096        the vicinity of Federal lands. This language has long been1097        viewed as a problem by NASF because it excludes communities1098        that have been identified as ``at-risk'' by state wildfire risk1099        assessments and other collaboratively developed tools used by1100        Federal and state agencies, such as the Pacific Northwest1101        Quantitative Wildfire Risk Assessment and the Southern Wildfire1102        Risk Assessment Portal.11031104   National Forest System Management Authorities (Sections1105        8402, 8403, 8404, and 8411)--NASF is grateful for the1106        Committee's inclusion of the ``Cottonwood Fix''--clarifying the1107        criteria under which Federal land managers are not required to1108        re-initiate Endangered Species Act consultation--and the1109        reauthorization and expansion of categorical exclusions for1110        wildfire resilience projects, fuel breaks, and insect and1111        disease projects. These provisions can meaningfully increase1112        the pace and scale of cross-boundary forest management and1113        wildfire mitigation work.11141115   Joint Chiefs' Landscape Restoration Partnership Program1116        (Section 8420)--NASF appreciates the Committee extending the1117        authorization for the Joint Chiefs' Program which--through1118        bringing to bear resources and expertise of the Forest Service1119        and the Natural Resources Conservation Service--has improved1120        the health and resilience of forest landscapes across National1121        Forest System lands and state, Tribal, and private land.1122Sustaining Active Management of State and Private Forests through the1123        Farm Bill1124    Since the turn of the 20th century, Congress has recognized and1125reinforced the need for partnership between the Federal Government and1126states for the benefit of actively managing all of America's forests--1127private, state, and Federal. Only a few years after the Forest Service1128was created, Congress created the nexus between the Forest Service and1129State Forestry Agencies with the Weeks Act of 1911 and the Clarke-1130McNary Act of 1924, authorizing technical and financial assistance to1131states for wildfire control and post-fire reforestation. Subsequent1132legislative milestones in the form of the Cooperative Forest Management1133Act of 1950, the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, the 19901134Farm Bill, and every farm bill since have further provided1135Congressional direction and authorities to the Forest Service and its1136role as a key partner to State Forestry Agencies in the active1137management of state and private forestlands.1138    Forested lands in Utah are one of the state's most valuable natural1139resources. They provide scenic beauty, wildlife habitat, clean air and1140supply timber products. Most of the forested lands in the state are1141held by private landowners or by the Forest Service. Each of the1142Division's 6 area offices employs a forester who works with landowners1143and to provide assistance to those wishing to utilize, improve or1144conserve their forested lands, this includes reducing the risk of1145catastrophic wildfire. This is made possible through Congressional1146direction, authorities and funding. It plays an important role in the1147work we do in Utah and creates direct results on the ground cross-1148boundary benefiting communities and future generations to come.1149    NASF is grateful for the Committee's work in the Farm, Food, and1150National Security Act of 2024 to capture a number of State Foresters'1151key national priorities to sustain the active management of state and1152private forestlands--or \2/3\ of all forests nationwide--including:11531154   State Forest Action Plan Implementation Capacity (Section1155        8101)--Mandated by the 2008 Farm Bill, State Forest Action1156        Plans offer practical and comprehensive roadmaps for investing1157        Federal, state, local, and private resources where they can be1158        most effective in achieving national conservation goals.1159        Collectively, State Forest Action Plans make up one strategic1160        plan for America's forests. States have consistently advocated1161        for funding flexibility--that is the ability for each state to1162        receive funds that allow for the use of all the authorities of1163        the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act. By eliminating the1164        color of money associated with several different Federal1165        programs, State Forestry Agencies will be able to more1166        effectively utilize the resources needed to implement the1167        forest management goals of their individual State Forest Action1168        Plans, while bringing state, nonprofit, and philanthropic1169        support that states are uniquely able to unlock.11701171   Supporting Reforestation through the Forest Service's1172        Reforestation, Nurseries and Genetic Resources (RNGR) Program1173        (Section 8305)--First created in 2001, the Forest Service's1174        RNGR Program provides assistance to states, Tribes and other1175        partners in native plant seed and seedling production, focusing1176        on adequate supplies of seedlings for conservation and1177        reforestation, propagation and planting methods, cost-effective1178        production and planting techniques, and--ultimately--tree1179        planting to address forest resilience, land reclamation, and1180        land rehabilitation after extreme fire events or other natural1181        disasters impacting forests. However, because the program has1182        been governed through Memorandums of Understanding between1183        agency deputy areas rather than as a standalone program, the1184        significant national reforestation demands on Federal, state,1185        and private lands, and an estimated $160 million in unmet1186        infrastructure needs at state and Tribal nurseries that serve1187        all landownerships, codifying and resourcing the RNGR Program1188        is critical. We greatly appreciate the Committee's work on1189        including this provision and ask for the addition of a critical1190        pay-for mechanism--identified funding from the Forest Service's1191        Reforestation Trust Fund--that is important for ensuring the1192        permanent nursery infrastructure program does not redirect1193        funds from other programs necessary for executing national1194        forestry priorities.11951196   Bolstering the Emergency Forest Restoration Program (Section1197        8708)--The Emergency Forest Restoration Program--administered1198        by the Farm Service Agency with technical expertise from the1199        Forest Service--was codified in the 2008 Farm Bill and has1200        proven to be woefully inadequate and too cumbersome for most1201        landowners to benefit from. NASF applauds the work of the1202        Committee to allow for impacted private forest landowners to1203        receive 75 percent of cost of payment up front, as opposed to a1204        program design based on reimbursement. Timely and ecologically1205        proper timber salvage and reforestation helps ensure our1206        nation's private forestlands continue to provide public1207        benefits like clean air and water, recreational opportunities,1208        rural economic stimulus and more.12091210    NASF also looks forward to working with the Committee to address1211two further priorities as it considers a 2025 Farm Bill:12121213   Utilizing the Conservation Reserve Program--In the face of1214        increasing conversion of farm and forestland to other uses like1215        commercial and residential development and the more recent1216        proliferation of solar farms--especially in the southeastern1217        United States--the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is a1218        critical incentive for keeping forests as forests. CRP-trees1219        acres under contract have declined precipitously in the past1220        decade and to reverse this trend, changes to current policy are1221        needed. These include allowing more re-enrollment opportunities1222        for stands of trees of all species on the condition they are1223        being actively managed to maintain healthy stand conditions,1224        financial support of mid-contract management through thinning1225        and prescribed fire, and allowing for the eventuality of1226        harvesting stands at maturity as part of sustainable forest1227        management. CRP-tree contracts are a high priority for states1228        in many parts of the country, especially the pine belt in the1229        South. These policy needs would allow for states to retain1230        discretion on setting their own priorities for CRP.12311232   Modernizing Eligibility for the Forest Service's Volunteer1233        Fire Assistance Program--The Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA)1234        Program provides financial capacity to volunteer fire1235        departments (VFDs) protecting small, rural communities. State1236        and locals respond to 80 percent of wildland fires nationwide1237        and with expansion of the wildland-urban interface, the1238        frequency and complexity of fire has necessitated improved1239        collaboration with volunteer organizations. However, the1240        program's statutory eligibility requirements are over 40 years1241        old and do not acknowledge the reduced volunteerism, population1242        growth in areas served by existing VFDs, and some challenges in1243        VFDs meeting the match requirements. NASF is aligned with the1244        National Volunteer Fire Council and the International1245        Association of Fire Chiefs in proposing changing the qualifying1246        community population threshold from 10,000 to 15,000 or less,1247        changing the percent volunteer firefighting personnel threshold1248        from 80 percent to 70 percent or more, and allowing for1249        Secretarial discretion on waiving match requirement for VFDs,1250        similar to other fire and forestry programs.1251Conclusion1252    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee1253today and provide testimony on behalf of NASF. We appreciate the1254ongoing work of this Subcommittee to provide Federal and state forest1255managers, as well as private landowners, with tools that increase the1256pace and scale of active forest management, cross-boundary work, and1257rapid and effective response to insects, disease and wildland fire. We1258look forward to working with the Subcommittee, the Full Committee, and1259our Federal partners to provide the collective insights of the nation's1260State Foresters in a final 2025 Farm Bill.1261    I look forward to answering any questions the Subcommittee may1262have.12631264    The Chairman. Perfect. Thank you Ms. Barnes. Appreciate1265your testimony. I now will recognize our next witness, Mr.1266Scott Dane from the American Loggers Council. He is their1267executive director. Go ahead.12681269       STATEMENT OF BRADLEY ``SCOTT'' DANE, EXECUTIVE1270       DIRECTOR, AMERICAN LOGGERS COUNCIL, GILBERT, MN12711272    Mr. Dane. Chairman LaMalfa, Ranking Member Salinas, and1273Committee Members, on behalf of the American Loggers Council, I1274want to thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding1275promoting forest health and resiliency through improved active1276management. I am the Executive Director of the American Loggers1277Council, which represents members in 49 states.1278    I would like to begin by addressing silviculture forest1279management, which is the science of controlling the1280establishment, growth, composition, and health of forests and1281woodlands, and societal objectives, such as producing timber,1282maintaining wildlife habitat, improving forest health,1283recreation, and protecting watersheds on a sustainable basis.1284This is accomplished by a range of practices, including1285planting, thinning, and harvesting, to guide the development of1286forests stands for desired outcomes. These sustainable forest1287management activities are not being fully utilized on National1288Forests, particularly as they apply to timber harvesting over1289the past few decades.1290    The volume of timber harvest on National Forests has1291declined by over 75 percent. Additionally, silvicultural1292standards establish tree stand densities, trees per acre, that1293is optimal for achieving healthy forest objectives. According1294to top forest researchers, low-density stands that largely1295eliminate tree competition are key to creating forest1296resilience to the multiple stressors of severe wildfire,1297drought, bark beetles, and climate change. They conclude that1298managing for resilience requires drastically reducing1299densities, as much as 80 percent of trees in some cases.1300    Tree mortality for the first time, according to the U.S.1301Forest Service reports, exceeds tree growth by two times. Let1302me repeat that: twice as many trees are dying in the National1303Forests than are growing. Much of this mortality is driven by1304wildfire. It is not timber harvesting. Timber harvesting only1305represents 25 percent of the net tree growth, and seven times1306more trees are dying than are being harvested. Logging isn't1307the problem. In fact, it is a solution. These statistics1308clearly indicate that National Forest management policy for the1309past 3 decades has not worked. The health of our National1310Forests are in decline.1311    This brings me to wildfire. Millions of acres of forest1312burn annually. Fire science is basic. Three components are1313necessary for fire: an ignition source, quite often, lightning1314strikes, oxygen, and fuel. The only one that we can control is1315fuel, and in the case of wildfires, unhealthy forests that are1316overstocked and filled with dying and dead timber. In an effort1317to begin reducing hazardous fuels from National Forest lands,1318the American Loggers Council, in partnership with the U.S.1319Forest Service, developed a Biomass Transportation Incentive1320Pilot Project, which removed 120,000 green tons of hazardous1321fuels, primarily biomass, and utilized it as feedstock for1322biomass power generation. This successful demonstration evolved1323into the USDA U.S. Forest Service Hazardous Fuels1324Transportation Assistance Program that continues to remove1325hazardous fuels from the National Forest landscape. This public1326and private partnership is one of the many opportunities1327available to collaboratively mitigate wildfire threats and1328severity by reducing fuel loads and addressing the backlog of1329landscape treatment.1330    The U.S. Forest Service has developed a wildfire crisis1331strategy to begin addressing 50 million acres of high-risk1332forest firesheds. The primary component of the wildfire crisis1333strategy is fuel--timber--reduction. This Administration1334recognizes these facts and has issued numerous Executive1335Orders, initiated trade investigations, issued policy1336directives, and taken other actions to improve forest1337management and support the timber and forest products1338industries. These directives need to be codified to ensure1339their long-term implementation. This crisis a problem decades1340in the making and will require decades to correct.1341    The most comprehensive legislation to codify this and other1342forest management reforms is the Fix Our Forests Act. Passing1343this legislation will ensure the forest management and wildfire1344mitigation, regulations, policies, and procedures survive1345political cycles. With the new Congress and Administration, the1346American Loggers Council prepared a ``Roadmap to Recovery''1347that identified the top seven priority issues and actionable1348Congressional administrative responses. I have included a copy1349with my testimony to be included in the Congressional record.1350    With over 150 mills closed across the United States in the1351past 36 months, markets are seriously compromised. To promote1352forest health and resiliency through improved active1353management, markets are necessary. No markets, no management.1354We are at a crossroads. Congress and the Administration must1355take action to improve forest health through active management1356before the logging and mill infrastructure deteriorates to a1357point that forest management will no longer be possible. Thank1358you very much.1359    [The prepared statement of Mr. Dane follows:]13601361   Prepared Statement of Bradley ``Scott'' Dane, Executive Director,1362                 American Loggers Council, Gilbert, MN13631364    Chairman LaMalfa and Committee Members, on behalf of the American1365Loggers Council, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify1366regarding Promoting Forest Health and Resiliency Through Improved1367Active Management.1368    I am the Executive Director of the American Loggers Council which1369represents members in 49 states.1370    I would like to begin by addressing silviculture (forest1371management), which is the science of controlling the establishment,1372growth, composition, and health of forests and woodlands and societal1373objectives, such as producing timber, maintaining wildlife habitat,1374improving forest health, recreation, and protecting watersheds on a1375sustainable basis. This is accomplished by a range of practices1376including planting, thinning, and harvesting to guide the development1377of a forest stand for desired outcomes.1378    These sustainable forest management activities are not being fully1379utilized on our National Forests, particularly as they apply to timber1380harvesting. Over the past few decades, the volume of timber harvest on1381National Forests has declined by over 75%, from a high of 13 billion1382board-feet to 3 billion board-feet.1383    Additionally, silvicultural standards establish tree stand density1384(trees per acre) that is optimal for achieving healthy forest1385objectives. According to top forest researchers: ``. . . low-density1386stands that largely eliminate tree competition are key to creating1387forests resilient to the multiple stressors of severe wildfire,1388drought, bark beetles and climate change.'' They conclude that1389``managing for resilience requires drastically reducing densities--as1390much as 80% of trees, in some cases.'' \1\1391---------------------------------------------------------------------------1392    \1\ Operational resilience in western US frequent-fire forests:1393www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/1394S0378112721010975?dgcid=author#preview-section-abstract1395    Authors: Malcolm P. North, USFS Pacific Southwest Research Station;1396Ryan E. Tompkins, Department of Plant Sciences, University of CA,1397Davis; Alexis A. Bernal, University of CA Cooperative Extension,1398Plumas-Sierra; Brandon M. Collins, Department of Environmental Science,1399Policy, and Management, Ecosystem Sciences Division, University of1400California, Berkeley; Scott L. Stephens, Center for Fire Research and1401Outreach, Univ. of CA, Berkeley; Robert A. York, USFS Pacific Southwest1402Research Station.1403---------------------------------------------------------------------------1404    Tree mortality for the first time (2016), according to USFS1405reports,\2\ exceeds tree growth by two times. Let me repeat that--twice1406as many trees are dying in the National Forests than are growing. Much1407of this mortality is driven by wildfire. It is not timber harvesting.1408Timber harvesting is only 25% of the net tree growth, and seven times1409more trees are dying than are being harvested. Logging isn't the1410problem; in fact, it is the solution. I have included a copy of this1411report for the Congressional record.1412---------------------------------------------------------------------------1413    \2\ Annual Net Growth, Mortality, and Harvest on National Forest on1414National Forest Timberlands 1952-2016.1415---------------------------------------------------------------------------1416    These statistics clearly indicate that National Forest management1417policy for the past 3 decades has not worked. The health of National1418Forests is in severe decline.1419    This brings me to wildfire. Millions of acres of forests burn1420annually. Fire science is basic. Three components are necessary for1421fire: an ignition source (quite often lightning strikes), oxygen, and1422fuel. The only one that we can control is fuel, and in the case of1423wildfires, unhealthy forests that are overstocked and filled with dying1424and dead timber.1425    In an effort to begin reducing hazardous fuels from National Forest1426lands, the American Loggers Council, in partnership with the U.S.1427Forest Service, developed the Biomass Transportation Incentive Pilot1428project that removed 120,000 green tons of hazardous fuels (primarily1429biomass) and utilized it as feedstock for biomass power generation.1430This successful demonstration evolved into the USDA/USFS Hazardous1431Fuels Transportation Assistance Program that continues to remove1432hazardous fuels from National Forest landscapes.1433    This public-private partnership is one of many opportunities1434available to collaboratively mitigate wildfire threats and severity by1435reducing fuel loads and addressing the backlog of landscape treatment.1436    The USFS has developed a Wildfire Crisis Strategy to begin1437addressing 50 million acres of high-risk forest firesheds. The primary1438component of the Wildfire Crisis Strategy is fuel (timber) reduction.1439    The Administration recognizes these facts and has issued numerous1440Executive Orders, initiated trade investigations, issued policy1441directives, and taken other actions to improve forest management and1442support the U.S. timber and forest products industries.1443    These directives need to be codified to ensure their long-term1444implementation. This crisis is a problem--decades in the making and it1445will require decades to correct. The most comprehensive legislation to1446codify this and other forest management reforms is the Fix Our Forests1447Act. Passing this legislation will ensure that forest management and1448wildfire mitigation regulations, policies, and procedures survive1449political cycles.1450    With the new Congress and Administration, the American Loggers1451Council prepared A Road Map to Recovery \3\ that identified the top1452seven priority issues and actionable Congressional and Administration1453responses. I have included a copy with my testimony to be included in1454the Congressional record.1455---------------------------------------------------------------------------1456    \3\ A Roadmap to Recovery, American Loggers Council 2025.1457---------------------------------------------------------------------------1458    With over 150 mills closed across the country in the past 361459months, markets are seriously compromised. To Promote Forest Health and1460Resiliency Through Improved Active Management, markets are necessary.1461No Markets, No Management1462    We are at a crossroads. Congress and the Administration must take1463action to improve forest health through active management, before the1464logging and mill infrastructure deteriorates to a point that forest1465management will not be possible.1466                              attachment 11467Annual Net Growth, Mortality, and Harvest on National Forest1468        Timberlands--1952-201614691470        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]14711472                              attachment 214731474[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]14751476The Dawn of a New Age in the American Timber Industry--A Road Map to1477        Recovery14781479        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]14801481A Roadmap To Recovery of the U.S. Timber Industry1482    The American Timber Industry is in a serious state of decline that1483threatens the entire forest products (paper, lumber, bioenergy)1484industry and public-private healthy forest management goals and1485objectives. Human infrastructure continues to age (average logger age1486over 55) and employment within the logging sector is declining 2%1487annually over the past 20 years. The logging sector is the first link1488in the forest industry supply chain supporting 900,000 jobs, with a1489$300 billion U.S. economic impact. All of this is supported by 50,0001490timber industry workers employed by small family multigenerational1491logging and trucking businesses, without which the entire timber and1492forest products industry would collapse. These jobs are rural in1493nature, but supply materials for products that all of American society1494depends on daily.1495    The factors contributing to the decline of the U.S. timber and1496forest products industry have been identified and can be rectified1497through proper trade policy, active forest management practices, new1498forest products market development, maximizing transportation1499efficiency, workforce development, de-weaponizing obstructionist1500litigation, and favorable tax policy.1501    All of the challenges and threats to the timber and forest products1502industry can be boiled down to one common denominator--markets. Markets1503drive investment, investment drives development, development drives1504competition, competition drives profitability, profitability drives1505competitiveness, and competitiveness drives wages/benefits.1506    The following information identifies the priority issues and1507actions that can serve as a road map to the recovery of the U.S. timber1508and forest products industry that Congress and the Administration must1509undertake.15101511[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]15121513National Forest Management1514Issue: National Forest Management1515    There is an obvious correlation between areas where declining1516National Forest management dominates the landscape--and the occurrence1517of unhealthy, overgrown and dense forests plagued by disease,1518infestation and wildfire.1519    This National Forest decline creates a self-fulfilling downward1520spiral of reduced timber management and harvest volume leading to a1521loss of forest products mills/markets, which is then used to justify1522continued reduction in timber sales volume that is inadequate to1523support the supply needs of existing markets thereby causing the1524failure of remaining markets and perpetuating the circular downward1525spiral of forest health and industry. The end result of this harmful1526National Forest situation is forest deterioration by fire, disease and1527infestation. This deterioration fails to comply with the National1528Forest Management Act of 1976, which requires the U.S. Forest Service1529``to maintain effective land management''.1530    National Forest Plans identify the Allowable Sale Quantity that can1531be harvested during a 10 year period, while maintaining sustainability1532based on areas suitable for timber production. The U.S. Forest Service1533and the Bureau of Land Management have failed to achieve this volume1534during the past 3 decades.1535    The U.S. Forest Service currently harvests approximately 3 billion1536board-feet of lumber, compared to 13 billion board-feet 40 years ago.1537Today, the U.S. Forest Service spends more of their budget on wildfire1538response than forest management. Ironically, of the nearly 30,000 U.S.1539Forest Service employees, just 3% are foresters.1540    In Minnesota, where the National Forests represent 11% of the1541forested land, it only contributes 4% of harvested timber. This trend1542is significantly multiplied in regions (western states) where the1543majority of public lands is managed by national agencies. These areas1544also experience higher mortality, wildfire, overstocking, and lost1545infrastructure. In contrast, regions that are majority privately1546managed land, forest health and markets are more productive, healthy1547and stable.1548    The U.S. has an abundant renewable resource that can be sustainably1549managed to provide raw material for lumber and other forest products1550production if active forest management is returned to the public1551landscape.1552    A commitment to increased forest management timber harvest volume1553will enable the remaining forest products industry infrastructure to1554maintain sustainability while conveying a commitment that will secure1555additional investment and growth. Thus, reversing the decline in1556National Forest management and timber industry infrastructure, as well1557as wildfire severity.1558    The National Forests will be critical to support the development1559and expansion of domestic softwood lumber markets and the reduction in1560softwood lumber imports as noted in the first issue.1561    Many rural counties and schools historically benefited from far1562greater National Forest timber sales revenue, due to their proximity to1563National Forests and the statutory timber harvest revenue sharing with1564counties and schools from those National Forests. In response to a1565reduction in timber management and sales--critical county and school1566revenues paid by National Forests have declined. To offset the losses1567and stabilize the revenue stream, Secure Rural Schools Funding (SRS)1568was established by Congress in 2000, which provides revenue to counties1569and schools. The Secure Rural Schools Funding represents a small1570fraction of county and school revenue received 40 years ago (In 2024,1571$250 million annually for 775 rural counties and 4,400 rural schools1572across the country). However, the Secure Rural Schools Funding expired1573at the end of 2024.1574    Many policies, actions and Executive Orders are politically-driven1575to support environmental agendas, but have the unintended consequence1576of further obstructing active forest management. However, recent1577legislation has been introduced that would address and correct existing1578ill-conceived policies, actions and Executive Orders that are being1579abused in the furtherance of obstructing healthy forest management.1580Action: Manage National Forests1581   The Fix Our Forests Act (FOFA) is comprehensive legislation1582        that would address many of the known shortcomings and1583        challenges that are inhibiting proper forest management. This1584        FOFA bill should be priority legislation passed to immediately1585        realign the healthy forest management objectives for the1586        National Forests.15871588   Secure Rural Schools Act (SRS) reauthorization would be most1589        effective when paired with the Fix Our Forests Act (FOFA).1590        Passing these two bills together would accomplish the dual1591        benefits of improving National Forest management and1592        maintaining vital National Forest management revenue source for1593        rural counties, schools, forest management infrastructure, and1594        vibrant rural forest communities.15951596   The U.S. Forest Service must increase active forest1597        management and timber harvest as per their current volume1598        ``target''. This National Forest target is typically \1/2\ to1599        \1/3\ of the legally-authorized Allowable Sale Quantity; and1600        even at that reduced volume is rarely achieved. In Alaska, the1601        second largest National Forest, the Chugach has zero timber1602        harvest planned.16031604   Litigation Reform is addressed in the Fix Our Forest Act.1605        Additionally, require litigating parties challenging USFS1606        forest management plans and activities to have ``standing'' and1607        to post bonds sufficient to cover the costs of defense, loss of1608        property/lives due to delay, and timber contract holder lost1609        revenue should the challenge be denied.16101611   Direct the USFS to cease efforts based on EO 14072 to1612        inventory ``mature and old growth timber''.16131614   Reform the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).1615        Multiple bills have been introduced in the House of1616        Representatives to amend NEPA, which would address flaws in the1617        statute that have resulted in unreasonable timelines and1618        litigation.16191620   Pass a Congressional Review Act rescinding the uplisting of1621        the Northern Long Eared Bat from Threatened to Be Endangered.1622        This was passed in the House and Senate with bipartisan support1623        in 2023 but vetoed by President Biden.1624Trade Policy1625Issue: Trade Policy1626    The U.S. is the leading global importer of softwood lumber. The1627primary source is Canada, followed by Brazil and China as well as1628Europe. The U.S. continues to import wood products (plywood) from1629Russia. In fact, manufactured wood products constituted over 50% of the1630trade between the U.S. and Russia in 2024, increasing 53% in the latter1631half of 2024. All while record numbers (100+) of forest products mills1632close in the U.S., millions of acres of U.S. forests burn annually, and1633over 10,000 jobs have been lost in the timber and forest products1634industries in the past 24 months.1635    Clearly the U.S. demand and market exists for softwood lumber. The1636U.S. should not be supporting the timber industry of other countries at1637the demise of the U.S. forests and industry.1638    Additionally, in some cases, raw timber is shipped from the U.S.1639(due to a lack of domestic mills that have gone offshore) to countries1640that process it into finished products and then ship it back to the1641U.S. markets.1642    The U.S. practices third party certification silvicultural based1643forest management which ensures sustainable management of U.S. forests.1644Today's U.S. timberlands exceed the acres of timberlands from 100 years1645ago. U.S. forest management practices do not result in deforestation.1646The only deforestation that occurs in the U.S. is due to urban1647development and massive solar farms. Imposing additional redundant1648administrative management requirements, as per the European Union1649Deforestation Regulations, only adds more time and expense to the1650operations and reduces efficiency and competitiveness.1651Action: Fair Trade1652   Enact trade policy, including tariffs, to level the playing1653        field and allow for U.S. forest management, U.S. raw material1654        harvesting, U.S. forest products production, and create U.S.1655        jobs.16561657   Enact and enforce a full ban on Russian origin lumber.16581659   Inform the European Union that the United States has strict1660        sustainable forestry practices and standards recognized and, in1661        some cases, originating in Europe that ensure no deforestation1662        practices are conducted. In fact, the forested area of the1663        United States has increased over what it was 100 years ago.1664        Therefore, the U.S. will not be implementing the unnecessary1665        requirement of the ill-conceived European Union Deforestation1666        Regulations (EUDR). The EUDR is an environmental driven1667        initiative to further obstruct the timber industry, add1668        uncompensated costs, and generally a solution looking for a1669        problem where, regarding the U.S., one does not exist.1670Safer Transportation1671Issue: Interstate Truck Weight Restrictions1672    The U.S. transportation policy and inconsistencies creates a1673competitive burden for agricultural products, including raw timber.1674Weight limits on the Federal interstate systems vary drastically for1675timber products, although it is the same interstate system. Foreign1676transportation policy allows for heavier transportation weights than1677parts of the United States.16781679                    Log Truck Weight Limits Examples1680------------------------------------------------------------------------16811682------------------------------------------------------------------------1683Canada (national roadways)           140,000 (up to) pounds based on1684                                      configuration1685Michigan (164,000)                   164,000 pounds w/11 axles1686New England (2010 pilot, 2017        100,000/99,000 pounds w/6 axles1687 permanent)                           (Maine/Vermont)1688Minnesota (2015. Limited to 23       99,000 Winter w/6 axles1689 miles)1690Mississippi (2024)                   88,000 pounds w/5 axles1691Wisconsin (2015. Limited to          100,000 winter w/6 axles1692 designated routes)1693North Carolina (new interstates      88,000 pounds w/5 axles1694 grandfathered in at state weights)1695------------------------------------------------------------------------16961697    Aside from these variances, states are restricted to 80,000 pounds1698on their respective interstates.1699    The Minnesota Department of Transportation, the University of1700Georgia, State of Mississippi, State of Maine, and other sources have1701conducted studies and analysis of the road impacts, safety, braking1702capacity, fuel consumption (mpg), CO2 emissions, miles1703traveled, and truck trips of various configurations of logging trucks1704using the Federal interstate system. All have concluded that there are1705benefits in every category, particularly safety.17061707    A recent study found that nearly 78% of all log truck fatal crashes1708occurred in the Southeast region of the U.S. In these states, oncoming1709cars infringing on the logging trucks' lanes were the leading cause of1710logging truck accidents.17111712    Routing these trucks off rural roadways, school zones, residential1713neighborhoods, pedestrian areas, and narrower two-lane opposing traffic1714routes will reduce accidents and improve safety.1715    The State of Maine documented a reduction in logging truck1716accidents after they were authorized to access the Federal interstate1717system.1718    Logging truck interstate access is already authorized in many1719states. The Federal precedent has been established in Minnesota,1720Wisconsin, Mississippi, Maine, Vermont, North Carolina, and Michigan.1721Identical language and legislation should extend Federal interstate1722access to allow log trucks already operating on local, county and state1723roads in each state as per their own criteria to utilize the Federal1724interstate road system. The Safe Routes Act has been introduced in1725Congress with Bipartisan support annually.1726    Additionally, the commercial trucking sector is experiencing severe1727a driver shortage with a projected 60,000 commercial truck drivers1728needed. This is even more pronounced within the log truck driving1729category due to the unique aspects of hauling logs. Improving1730transportation efficiency will enable the log trucking sector of the1731timber industry to do more with less.1732Action: Improving Transportation Safety and Efficiency1733    Congress must immediately pass the ``Safe Routes Act'' to1734universally provide the authorization of each respective state to pass1735legislation at the state level extending access to the Federal1736interstate systems as per their current weight limits and criteria.17371738   The Administration should issue an Executive Order1739        authorizing states to authorize commercial trucks currently1740        operating within their intrastate road system (non-Federal),1741        and at weights/configurations to extend operation of these1742        commercial vehicles to the Federal interstate system.17431744   Incentivize commercial truck driver entry through refundable1745        tax credits of up to $7,500 for Class A Commercial Drivers1746        License (CDL) operators as per the bipartisan 20221747        ``Strengthening Supply Chains Through Truck Driver Incentives1748        Act.''1749Renewable Fuel Standard1750Issue: Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)1751    The Renewable Fuel Standard was established by the Energy Policy1752Act of 2005 and expanded by the Energy Independence and Security Act of17532007 for the purpose of; reducing the country's reliance on foreign1754oil; grow the renewable energy industry; and reduce greenhouse gas1755emissions. The program is implemented by the EPA in ``consultation''1756with USDA and DOE.1757    There are four renewable fuel categories:17581759   Biomass based diesel17601761   Cellulosic biofuels17621763   Advanced biofuel17641765   Total renewable fuel17661767    Within these categories there are five subcategories or silos1768describing the various Renewable Index Numbers (RIN's) per specific1769type of renewable fuel. The D3 and D7 RIN's are cellulosic based1770produced from cellulose, hemicellulose, or lignin. This would include1771forest-based feedstock.1772    D3 and D7 cellulosic renewable fuels have never been commercially1773produced and is confirmed by the EPA who have developed Cellulosic1774Waiver Credits due to ``recognizing the short-term difficultly in1775attaining required volumes of cellulosic standards.''1776    However, there are billions of dollars in investment prepared to1777produce D3 and D7 cellulosic renewable fuels, including sustainable1778aviation fuel (SAF) upon approval of project pathway applications. The1779only obstacles are EPA's timely Pathway application response and1780approval and overly restrictive ``interpretation'' of eligible forest-1781based feedstock (contrary to USDA USFS consultation). There are1782millions of tons of unmerchantable timber, biomass and hazardous fuels1783available as feedstock for the production of D3 and D7 cellulosic1784renewable fuels.17851786    The USFS Wildfire Crisis Strategy recognizes the need to treat 501787million acres, including hazardous fuels that are feeding the1788wildfires. The challenge is what to do with this otherwise1789unmerchantable biomass. The answer is to use it as feedstock for1790renewable fuels production.17911792    The EPA's position on Pathway Application processing is to address1793each application on a case-by-case basis. This creates uncertainty and1794delays the collective processing of similar projects. Approval of the1795known projects to produce cellulosic renewable fuels will compliment1796the U.S. energy independence agenda and produce new and much needed1797forest product markets.1798    Nearly 15 years ago the EPA recognized that electricity derived1799from renewable biomass qualified as a renewable transportation fuel as1800part of the 2010 RFS2 Rule, but the EPA has failed to comply with the1801language in their own rule and activate the electric pathway. With the1802emergence of electric vehicles, which represent 9% of vehicle market1803share, the EPA's delay jeopardizes legally obligated revenue streams1804and fiscal viability of these biomass electric generation facilities.1805    The EPA has failed to implement the full scope of the RFS as per1806the Congressional Intent.1807    The EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ), Office of1808Air and Radiation (OAR) does not have the background, understanding, or1809expertise of forest-based cellulosic feedstock and forest management1810practices to effectively administer or process the Pathway Applications1811for D3 and D7 RIN's projects. EPA has not collectively deferred to1812USDA/USFS expertise, advice, and direction regarding forest management1813practices and timber source marketing/value.1814Action: RFS Administration1815   The RFS program must be moved from OTAQ, OAR to the USDA/1816        USFS or other administration authority that is knowledgeable in1817        forest-based feedstock (biomass, hazardous fuels,1818        unmerchantable timber, cull wood, etc.) or headed by a1819        political appointee with a Memorandum of Understanding with the1820        USDA/USFS.18211822   All Pathway Applications must be reviewed, processed and1823        approved/disapproved within ninety days of submission.18241825   Recognize forest-based biomass as a renewable carbon neutral1826        feedstock for electrical power generation and renewable fuel1827        production, as practiced by the rest of the developed global1828        countries.18291830   Include e-RIN's (renewable electricity generated from1831        forest-based renewable feedstock) as eligible for RIN credits.1832        This renewable energy displaces petroleum-based fuel and can be1833        traced to electric vehicle charging. Therefore, it accomplishes1834        the goals of the ``reducing the country's reliance on foreign1835        oil; grows the renewable energy industry (particularly1836        hazardous fuels identified in the Wildfire Crisis Strategy);1837        and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.'' These facilities can1838        address the projected demand for additional baseload1839        electricity to feed the grid more readily, cost-effectively,1840        and quickly than larger traditional power plants while1841        replacing the many coal power plants that are shutdown or1842        scheduled for shutdown.18431844   Amend EPA's biomass definition in the proposed Renewable1845        Volume Obligations (RVO) rule pending issuance in March 2025 to1846        expand ``biomass obtained from certain areas at risk of1847        wildfire from 200 feet to 1.5 miles of buildings or other areas1848        regularly occupied by people, or of public infrastructure.''1849Workforce Development1850Issue: Workforce Development1851    The demographics of the timber industry workforce are well1852documented to be aging, with over half 55+ years old (2017) and a1853declining total workforce of 2% annually as referenced. Surveys of1854existing logging businesses also revealed the majority were owned by1855individuals 55 years or older. Many of their succession plans do not1856include passing on the family business but instead closing the1857business. This aging workforce and ownership is going to compound the1858workforce shortage in the next 5-10 years.18591860   Wage and Benefit Competitiveness18611862   Seasonality18631864   Profitability18651866   Public Perception/Image18671868    There has been trade school programs developed around the country;1869however, they typically train small numbers (10-12 students) per1870session.1871    Starting or maintaining a logging business is capital intensive1872requiring millions of dollars in investment, with the profit margins of18731-3% for many companies, and significant risk and uncertainty. Most1874logging companies do not have binding volume or price contracts with1875mills that they do business with. Volumes and rates paid are commonly1876reduced by the mills with a phone call, text, or letter with minimal1877recourse from the logger.1878    Seasonal harvest windows have created operational restrictions that1879render employment within the sector as seasonal. Maintaining a skilled1880workforce in a seasonally limited environment is challenging and1881undermines the employment sustainability within the logging workforce.1882Coupled with long hours, harsh environment, and operational hazards1883without commiserate compensation and benefits, these factors have a1884negative impact in attracting young new workers into the industry.1885    Logging businesses are small family-owned multigenerational1886agricultural businesses very similar to farming. In recognition of the1887workforce structure and succession of farming businesses, farmers are1888able to integrate their family members that are 16-17 years old in the1889``mechanized'' operation of farming equipment to facilitate learning1890the operations and for future succession.18911892    Exemptions to the Hazardous Occupations (HO) Orders do not apply to1893youth employed or operated by their parents. At age 16 minors can1894perform any farm job, including those declared hazardous by the1895Secretary of Labor. In other occupations minors are not allowed to1896perform hazardous work until the age of 18. Ref. U.S. Department of1897Labor18981899    Loggers are not currently specifically permitted this exemption,1900although the Department of Labor Child Labor Bulletin 102 states:19011902          The Hazardous Occupations (HO) Orders for Agricultural1903        Employment, Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provides a minimum1904        age of 16 years for any agricultural occupations which the1905        Secretary of Labor finds and declares to be particularly1906        hazardous for persons under the age of 16. The Secretary of1907        Labor has found and declared that the following occupations are1908        hazardous for minors under 16 years of age: Felling, bucking,1909        skidding, loading or unloading timber with butt diameter of1910        more than 6"[.]19111912    This could be interpreted to allow for ``logging operations'' to be1913conducted by agricultural workers 16 years and older.19141915          Note: Contrary to Bureau of Labor Statistics reporting (i.e.,1916        Logging Industry Most Dangerous Occupation), a review of all1917        injury and fatality reports found the reporting criteria is1918        skewed and misleading. The American Loggers Council met with1919        the Bureau of Labor Statistics in Washington DC to review their1920        data. That meeting revealed that the report of fatalities per1921        100,000 (98/100,000) employees was extrapolated since there are1922        only 40,000-50,000 loggers in the workforce and for the year1923        reviewed was actually 47 fatalities. Of those, 80% were non-1924        mechanized operations (i.e., chainsaws and hand-felling) and1925        some were log truck accidents. When adjusted for these factors,1926        actual mechanized logging operations fatalities would be1927        approximately ten per year or extrapolated to be \20/100000\--1928        comparable to the agricultural sector at \23/100000\, the1929        second highest fatality rate.1930Action: Logging is Agriculture1931   The same opportunity for family members 16-17 years old to1932        operate ``mechanized'' logging equipment should be extended to1933        family logging businesses. The mechanization of the logging1934        industry is the single largest factor that has contributed to1935        improving safety. This legislation has been introduced with1936        bipartisan support into Congress for many years in the form of1937        the Future Logging Careers Act. This is the most readily1938        available pipeline for workforce entry and family business1939        succession.19401941   Trade schools specializing in logging industry workforce1942        training should receive Federal support and investment to1943        provide cost free tuition to prospective students. Efforts to1944        recruit at risk, under-served demographics, including an1945        emphasis on rural and urban areas should be a targeted focus.1946        Employers hiring from these programs should receive an1947        ``apprentice'' tax credit for the first year.1948Taxes1949Issue: Tax Burden Holding Back Investment1950    The Federal Excise Tax on heavy trucks was first enacted in 19171951(3%) to help pay for World War I and is the highest excise tax levied1952by the Federal Government. Over the course of 100 years the tax was1953repealed (1924), reinstated (1932 at 2% due to the depression),1954increased in 1941 (2.5%) and 1941 (5%) during WWII, 1951 (8% due to the1955Korean War), 1956 (10% for the formation of the National Interstate1956Highway Program), 1972 scheduled to be reduced to 5%, but due to1957ongoing interstate construction and overruns is maintained at 10%, 19751958Senate votes to repeal, but House does not, 1982 increased to 12% and1959extended to present day.1960    This tax adds more than $30,000 to the cost of new trucks and1961trailers. Off-highway equipment such as agriculture, earthmoving,1962forestry and mining machinery are exempt from the tax. This tax is paid1963at the time of sale on new trucks (not used since the excise tax has1964already been levied when new), which consequently incentivizes the1965purchase of used trucks over new trucks.1966    The Federal Excise Tax on new over the road trucks disincentivizes1967purchasing new trucks that are safer, more efficient, and produce less1968carbon emissions. Half of the Class 8 trucks on the road today are over196910 years old and lack the cleaner technologies and fuel efficiency1970gains of today's new trucks.1971    The price of conventional diesel trucks ($150,000+) has increased1972over 50% in 10 years, and the price of electric trucks ($250,000+) is1973nearly double the price of a standard diesel truck. The Federal Excise1974Tax is 12%. While the taxable value has increased significantly, the1975Federal Excise Tax has remained the same, generating a disproportionate1976amount of additional revenue at the expense of the consumer.1977    The timber industry provides the forest-based feedstock to biomass1978power plants. These markets are critical to comprehensive forest1979management operations and particularly the removal of hazardous fuels.1980In the realm of the renewable energy environment (wind, solar, biomass)198160% of renewable energy consumed in the U.S. is derived from biomass1982according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. However, the1983biomass renewable energy sector is at risk of losing IRS tax code1984sections 45Y and 48E production and investment tax credits in the1985Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 due to a lack of guidance from the1986Biden Administration. This creates an untenable uncertainty for1987renewable biomass power facilities.1988Action: Reduce Taxes to Support Economic Investment and Growth1989   Reduce or eliminate the Federal Excise Tax on Commercial1990        Trucks. This funding ($5 billion annually) has been included in1991        the Highway Trust Fund. The question is how to keep the Highway1992        Trust Fund whole with the elimination or reduction in this1993        revenue stream.19941995   Considering the significant increase in truck and trailer1996        value over the past 10 years, a 50% reduction in the Federal1997        Excise Tax, from 12% to 6% would theoretically generate the1998        same revenue as 2013.19992000   Another alternative would be to backfill the Federal Excise2001        Tax revenue with a 2.5 per gallon fuel tax. The U.S. consumes2002        135 billion gallons of gas annually and 45 billion gallons of2003        diesel fuel. A 2.5 per gallon tax will generate $4.5 billion2004        annually. This would allow for the full elimination of the2005        Federal Excise Tax.20062007   Transferring the fee to the actual vehicles impacting the2008        Highway system upon annual registration is a simple alternative2009        that will capture all vehicles including electric vehicles.2010        With 283,000,000 private vehicles and three million commercial2011        trucks, a flat $20 per vehicle registration annually will fully2012        offset the $5 billion current Federal Excise Tax.20132014   Regarding Clean Electricity Production and Investment Tax2015        Credits (Sections 45Y, 48E and 45Z) for Renewable Biomass Power2016        generating facilities, Congress and the Administration must2017        provide immediate clarity through the Department of Treasury2018        and the Internal Revenue Service of eligibility. The lack of2019        direction and certainty from the Biden Administration has left2020        the renewable biomass industry in a compromised position that2021        threatens the vital role these facilities represent in2022        renewable energy production, timber industry markets, forest2023        management and wildfire mitigation.2024Disaster Assistance2025Issue: Preserving Critical Infrastructure2026    Natural disasters impact the agricultural sector through floods,2027hurricanes, droughts, infestations and wildfires. The USDA Federal Crop2028Insurance Program protects agricultural producers from losses due to2029natural disasters or price fluctuations.2030    Timber Is Agriculture. However, timber crops do not receive similar2031protection. Loggers represent critical infrastructure and were deemed2032essential during the Pandemic. The Pandemic Assistance for Harvesters2033and Haulers (PATHH) provided funding ($200 million) to offset the2034financial losses during this period.2035    Due to recent hurricanes, drought and beetle infestations $1.62036billion is being considered to provide assistance to private timberland2037owners to recover from losses associated with natural disasters.2038    Preserving private timberlands and the service contractor2039infrastructure is necessary to support the entire forest products2040industry. Assistance programs in response (after the fact) to natural2041and economic disasters do not provide certainty, encourage investment,2042nor provide timely assistance. The need for these assurances for other2043agricultural sectors is recognized and available. Establishing standing2044programs for the timber industry will provide parity and protection2045that other agriculture commodities receive.2046Action2047   Pass the bipartisan Loggers Economic Assistance and Relief2048        Act that has been introduced in the House and Senate.20492050        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]20512052                          Gifford Pinchot famously wrote in Breaking2053                        New Ground, ``Forestry is Tree Farming.2054                        Forestry is handling trees so that one crop2055                        follows another. To grow trees as a crop is2056                        Forestry.''20572058                          The father of forestry and the first Chief of2059                        the U.S. Forest Service20602061                        Contact20622063    Scott Dane, Executive Director,2064executivedirector@americanloggerscouncil.com, 202-627-696120652066[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]20672068          ``First and foremost, you can never afford to forget for one2069        moment what is the object of the forest policy. Primarily that2070        object is not to preserve forests because they are beautiful--2071        though that is good in itself--not to preserve them because2072        they are refuges for the wild creatures of the wilderness--2073        though that too is good in itself--but the primary objective of2074        the forest policy as of the land policy of the United States,2075        is the making of prosperous homemaking of our country. Every2076        other consideration comes as secondary. The whole effort of the2077        government in dealing with the forests must be directed to this2078        end.''2079                                                Theodore Roosevelt 190320802081    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Dane. Appreciate your2082testimony.2083    We will now go to our next witness Carrie Monohan, who is2084the Director of Natural Resources at the Mooretown Rancheria of2085Maidu Indians in northern California. You have 5 minutes.20862087        STATEMENT OF  CARRIE MONOHAN, Ph.D.,  DIRECTOR OF2088          NATURAL RESOURCES, MOORETOWN RANCHERIA OF MAIDU2089          INDIANS, OROVILLE, CA20902091    Dr. Monohan. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, Chairman2092LaMalfa, Ranking Member Salinas, and other Subcommittee2093Members, for the opportunity to speak here today.2094    As you recognized in your remarks, we face a nationwide2095forest health crisis, and in the West, fires are the number one2096public safety, forest health, and environmental concern.2097Healthy forests are critical to the environment and to the2098economy, to rural communities and to Tribes. Tribal2099governments, like Mooretown Rancheria, a federally-recognized2100Tribe in northern California, can be a force multiplier to2101address this crisis, and we are already doing so through an2102innovative model using the Service First authority.2103    Committee Members likely recall the Camp Fire, which2104destroyed the Town of Paradise and took 85 lives in 2018. But2105since that time, we have also faced the 320,000 acre North2106Complex fire, the million acre Dixie Fire, and just last year,2107the Park Fire. Our community is ground zero of the National2108Forest health crisis, and while we have cultural and economic2109purposes for our forest management efforts, it is also a matter2110of necessity. I am here today to tell you about the Service2111First model, which can be used to rapidly address forest2112management needs across the nation without requiring new2113legislation or regulatory changes. At the same time, using2114Service First with Tribes can support Tribal economic2115development and bring to bear the skills and knowledge of those2116who have managed our forest for thousands of years.2117    Under the Service First model, the Bureau of Indian Affairs2118and the Forest Service enter into an interagency agreement,2119including Mooretown as an implementing partner. Forest Service2120funds are transferred to the Interior, then to a trust account2121held on the Tribe's behalf, and as work is completed, the Tribe2122is reimbursed for expenses incurred. It is important to note2123that Mooretown does not just work on our reservation and does2124not just work on the aboriginal territories of the Tribe, but2125that we provide forest management anywhere it is needed. For2126example, when Congress appropriated wildfire crisis funding,2127that funding was directed to National Forests designated as2128wildfire crisis landscapes. A number of National Forests in2129California and Nevada initiated interagency agreements with the2130Bureau of Indian Affairs and Mooretown to fund fuels reduction2131and ecosystem-enhancement projects. This included removing2132hazard trees, creating fuel breaks in the wildland-urban2133interface, and road repair to restore access.2134    Our crews are working as I speak on fuels reduction2135projects under those agreements, using both hand crews and a2136fleet of large equipment like masticators and log processors.2137However, we have experienced some challenges in working with2138the Forest Service under this model. We found that Forest2139Service personnel can be hesitant to use new tools like the2140Service First model unless they already have done so2141previously. We have found that capacity challenges in some of2142the districts have actually precluded them from approving2143projects supported by outside grant funding. Even when funding2144is available, environmental review complete, and we have an2145existing interagency agreement, we rely on Forest Service2146personnel to prepare scopes of work. We found that remaining2147staff often have not been trained to develop these key planning2148materials, and we have seen an exodus of older, experienced2149personnel.2150    To address many of these challenges, we have hired retired2151Forest Service employees, who can write the scopes of work and2152that are from the districts we work in, know what work is ready2153to proceed, and can coordinate with remaining Forest Service2154staff to help them use existing agreements and create new ones.2155In addition, we have had preliminary discussions with Forest2156Service leadership about developing training to ensure2157personnel are familiar with the Service First model and know2158its advantages. We are fighting a war on catastrophic wildfire,2159and we are trying to get ahead of it with basic forestry2160practices while recovering from decades of forest mismanagement2161in an era where the Forest Service is reeling from major2162personnel reductions. In summary, Mooretown forestry has2163demonstrated that Tribes using interagency agreements with the2164BIA and Forest Service is the most efficient means of deploying2165forest management funding, and it is working. Looking forward,2166we hope that the Committee will support more widespread2167adoption of the Service First model, help us secure training2168for Forest Service personnel, and, when appropriating forest2169management and wildfire crisis funding, recognize that Service2170First is the most efficient means of getting projects underway.2171    Finally, I would like to close by thanking Chairman LaMalfa2172for his long-term support of the Tribe and our forestry2173program, and Chairman Thompson and Chairman LaMalfa for2174visiting us in northern California to view the impacts of2175wildfire firsthand, and for inviting the Tribe here today.2176    [The prepared statement of Dr. Monohan follows:]21772178   Prepared Statement of Carrie Monohan, Ph.D., Director of Natural2179     Resources, Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians, Oroville, CA21802181    Chairman LaMalfa, Ranking Member Salinas, thank you for the2182opportunity to address the Subcommittee. As you recognized in your2183remarks, we face a nationwide forest health crisis and in the West2184fires are the number one public safety, forest health, and2185environmental concern. Healthy forests are critical to the environment2186and the economy, to rural communities and Tribes. Tribal governments2187like Mooretown Rancheria, a federally recognized Tribe in northern2188California, can be a force multiplier to address this crisis, and we2189are already doing so through an innovative model using the Service2190First authority.2191    Mooretown Rancheria is located in Bute County, California. The2192Maidu peoples' ancestral lands stretch from Mount Lassen in the North2193to the Yuba River in the South, from the Sacramento River in the West2194over the crest of the Sierra Nevada Mountains to Honey Lake in the2195East. Within these lands are three National Forests and a National2196Park, along with several state parks and other public lands.2197Mooretown's members historically worked largely in California's forest2198products industry and many lived in the town of Feather Falls, until it2199was destroyed by wildfire in 2020. Today Mooretown has a small2200reservation near the City of Oroville, though we also manage nearby2201Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands through co-2202management and co-stewardship agreements.2203    Subcommittee Members likely recall the Camp Fire, which destroyed2204the Town of Paradise and took 85 lives in 2018, but since that time we2205have also faced the 320,000 acre North Complex fire, which killed 152206and destroyed 2,500 structures; the million acre Dixie Fire, the2207largest fire in California history; and, just last year, the 430,0002208acre Park Fire, the fourth-largest in California history. Our community2209is ground zero of the National Forest health crisis, and while we have2210cultural and economic purposes for our forest management efforts, it is2211also a mater of necessity.2212    I am here today to tell you about our use of the Service First2213authority to provide forest management for the U.S. Forest Service2214(``USFS'') as a federally recognized Tribe, allowing us to deploy funds2215appropriated by Congress in a timely manner, often within weeks, and2216respond to this crisis at the pace and scale that it requires. The2217Service First model can be used to rapidly address hazardous conditions2218and other forest management needs across the nation, without requiring2219new legislation or regulatory changes. At the same time, using Service2220First with Tribes can support Tribal economic development and bring to2221bear the skills and knowledge of those who have managed our forests for2222thousands of years.2223    We participate in Interagency Agreements between the USFS and2224Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) through Service First Authority, which2225enables USDA and the Interior Department to share Federal resources to2226efficiently complete projects. Without the Bureau of Indian Affairs'2227California Central Forestry Department, a critical partner, we would2228not be able to conduct thousands of acres of fuels reduction for the2229Forest Service as we have every year since 2017.2230    Under this Service First model, BIA and USFS enter into an2231Interagency Agreement including Mooretown as an implementing partner;2232USFS funds are transferred to Interior, then to a trust account held on2233the Tribe's behalf; finally, we begin project implementation and are2234reimbursed as we submit expenses to BIA for work completed. The process2235allows us to initiate work as soon as funds are placed in our trust2236account, while maintaining strict Federal accounting and reporting2237requirements.2238    It's important to note that Mooretown does not just work on our2239reservation and the aboriginal territories of the Tribe, but that we2240provide forest management anywhere it is needed. For example, when2241Congress appropriated Wildfire Crisis funding, that funding was2242directed to the many National Forests designated as Wildfire Crisis2243Landscapes. A number of National Forests in California and Nevada2244initiated Interagency Agreements with the BIA and Mooretown to fund2245forest fuels and ecosystem enhancement projects; this included removing2246hazard trees, creating fuel breaks in the wildland-urban interface, and2247road repair to restore public and management access. Our Tribal member-2248led crews are working as I speak on fuels reduction projects under2249these agreements, using both hand crews and a fleet of large equipment2250like masticators and log processors. When the Tribe conducts work2251outside of its ancestral lands, we partner with local Tribes to train2252and employ their members, helping them build capacity to take on their2253own projects in the future.2254    Through this Service First model, the Tribe has partnered with BIA2255and other Federal agencies to conduct nearly $40 million of forest2256treatments since Mooretown Forestry Contract Services began operating.2257We have completed over 10,000 acres of fuels reduction, cleared2258hundreds of miles of roads of post-fire hazards, and built fuel breaks2259to make communities safer and our forests healthier.2260    We could not do this work without our partners at BIA Forestry, who2261serve a critical role in developing agreements, processing funding, and2262coordinating with USFS. We are also grateful for the many USFS2263personnel who recognize the unique benefits the Service First model2264provides, and who have energetically worked with us to deploy our teams2265wherever they can be most effective.2266    The Tribe does use other types of agreements, including a Master2267Service Agreement with Plumas National Forest, our closest partner, and2268hopes to enter Good Neighbor Authority to allow us to more efficiently2269and quickly move forest products, including timber, off the landscape.2270We are grateful for the Committee's efforts to address Good Neighbor2271Authority and are hopeful that the Fix Our Forests Act is enacted this2272year.2273    However, we have experienced some challenges in working with USFS2274under the Service First model:22752276   We've found that USFS personnel can be hesitant to use new2277        tools like our Service First model unless they have already2278        done so previously. At times funding transfers have been2279        delayed because of a disconnect between USFS field staff, who2280        understand our model, and grants and agreements staff, who may2281        not have experience with it.22822283   Capacity challenges in some USFS districts have actually2284        precluded them from approving projects supported by outside2285        grant funding, preventing valuable work which does not rely on2286        Federal funding.22872288   Even when funding is available, environmental review is2289        complete, and we have an existing Interagency Agreement, we2290        must rely upon USFS personnel to prepare a scope of work.2291        Younger staff often haven't been trained to develop these key2292        planning materials, and we've seen an exodus of older,2293        experienced personnel.22942295   At times we've also been told we should work directly with2296        USFS, rather than use the Service First model with BIA2297        participation. Service First is often superior to other2298        agreement types because it is less cumbersome, faster, and does2299        not require the Tribe to sign a limited waiver of sovereign2300        immunity.23012302    To address many of these challenges, and to stop the bleeding, we2303have hired retired USFS personnel who can write scopes of work, and2304that are from the districts we work in, know what work is ready to2305proceed, and can coordinate with remaining USFS staff to help them use2306existing agreements and create new ones.2307    We have had preliminary discussions with USFS leadership about2308developing training to ensure personnel are familiar with the Service2309First model and know its advantages. I am hopeful that the Committee2310will support this effort, and appreciate Chief Schultz's willingness to2311discuss this concern with us.2312    The Tribe is also working to develop an overarching MOU with the2313BIA to provide a firm structure to the Service First model, in part to2314reassure USFS personnel of the process and also to make our2315interactions with both agencies more predictable, routine, and durable.2316    We are fighting a war on catastrophic wildfire and we are trying to2317get ahead of it with basic forestry practices, while recovering from2318decades of forest mismanagement in an era where the Forest Service is2319reeling from major personnel reductions. In our region, that2320mismanagement began with the onslaught of the California Gold Rush and2321resulted in mass genocide and displacement of the communities that had2322managed the forests for millennia. The Tribe truly believes that if we2323take care of the Forests, they will take care of us; that rural2324communities are in need of wildfire protection; that watersheds are2325need forest management to protect water supplies for humans and2326wildlife; and, that key habitats hang on a razor's edge, vulnerable to2327being wiped out by a single fire.2328    In summary, Mooretown Forestry has demonstrated that Tribes using2329Interagency Agreements with the BIA and USFS are the fastest means of2330deploying forest management funding, and certainly faster than using2331nonprofit partners that rely upon the same laborious contracting2332requirements as the USFS. Mooretown can and does just get out there and2333do the work.2334    We are honored to come here to tell you that the Service First2335model of working with BIA and USFS using Interagency Agreements is2336working. We are proud of how much we have done, but recognize how much2337more work is needed. Looking forward, we hope that the Committee will2338support more widespread adoption of the Service First model, help us2339secure training for USFS personnel, and, when appropriating forest2340management and wildfire crisis funding, recognize that Service First is2341the fastest means of getting projects underway.2342    Finally, I would like to close by thanking Chairman LaMalfa for his2343long-term support of the Tribe and our Forestry program, and Chairman2344Thompson for visiting us in northern California, viewing the impacts of2345wildfire firsthand, and inviting the Tribe here today to testify.23462347    The Chairman. Thanks again, Dr. Monohan. Appreciate your2348testimony, and we will listen to our final witness, Dr. Thomas2349DeLuca, the Dean of the College of Forestry at Oregon State2350University. You have 5 minutes. Thank you.23512352    STATEMENT OF THOMAS H., DeLUCA, Ph.D., DEAN, COLLEGE OF2353      FORESTRY, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY;  DIRECTOR,  OREGON2354      FOREST RESEARCH LABORATORY, OSU, CORVALLIS, OR23552356    Dr. DeLuca. Chairman LaMalfa, Ranking Member Salinas, and2357Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to2358testify today. My name is Tom DeLuca. I serve as the Dean of2359the College of Forestry at Oregon State University.2360    Decades of timber harvest and fire suppression on Federal2361forestlands, followed by a precipitous decline in active2362management starting in the 1980s, resulted in a large portion2363of Federal forests being dangerously overstocked, vulnerable to2364insects and disease, and at high risk of high-severity2365wildfires. I applaud meaningful actions that can accelerate and2366increase science-informed forest management to improve forest2367health and resilience. The current Administration has2368prioritized action on Federal forestlands. There are, however,2369key challenges that put the potential for success at risk. I2370encourage this Committee to consider the following: can the2371Federal Government effectively achieve the desired management2372outcomes while reducing Federal workforce and research2373capacity? Second, given that we are far behind in addressing2374the Federal forests' condition, it is imperative that we focus2375precisely on where work needs to be done.2376    For the greatest potential for success, I offer three2377points for your consideration. First, Federal reductions in2378force and restructuring proposals undermine our collective2379ability to ramp up localized active management. Secretary2380Rollins issued a memorandum on July 24 to propose2381reorganization plans for the U.S. Forest Service to centralize2382personnel and resources in regional hubs. While this may offer2383administrative efficiencies, this action risks undermining the2384foundation of effective natural resource management by losing2385local knowledge and partnerships, trust, and ecological2386specificity that is critical to effective natural resource2387management. Workforce reductions initiated earlier this year2388are already constraining Federal capacity. The agency's2389research and development arm has dropped by about 25 percent,2390or nearly 400 permanent employees, since 2024. Over the same2391period, the Pacific Northwest Research Station, co-located on2392OSU's Corvallis campus, staff has declined by 60 positions, or239324 percent. These rapid reductions act to destabilize the2394agency being tasked with advancing enhanced management on our2395National Forests.2396    Second, U.S. Forest Service research enterprise reductions2397hinder science-informed management practices to support forest2398health and productivity. Our forests face ever-evolving2399threats, such as increasingly hot, dry conditions, novel2400insects and pathogens, and exotic plants. Science must be done2401to evolve with these novel threats. The U.S. Forest Service2402plays a critical role in advancing and translating science for2403active management to address these complex challenges. Equally2404important is the role of the U.S. Forest Service's Experimental2405Forest Network. Long-term ecological data collection at sites,2406such as the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest in Oregon, have2407provided irreplaceable insights into how forests function for2408more than 75 years. No other government agency or industry2409outside of the U.S. Forest Service is positioned to replace2410those losses in scientific work currently advanced by the2411agency.2412    Third and final, rescinding the Roadless Rule distracts2413from the priority management activities that improve forest2414health and resilience. The Roadless Rule restricts new road2415construction on approximately 58 of the 193 million acres of2416National Forest lands. Most of the acres in roadless areas are2417steep, remote, and costly to access for timber harvest.2418Historically, roads were built where it was most economically2419viable to harvest and haul timber. This remains true today, and2420the distance from un-roaded lands to active mills is even2421further today due to the large number of mill closures over the2422last 30 years. Rescinding the Roadless Rule won't mitigate2423wildfire risk, which is based on three factors: the likelihood2424that a wildfire will happen in a given place, the potential2425severity of a fire when it occurs, and the values at risk. The2426highest priority for reducing wildfire risk is in the wildland-2427urban interface where people, property, and infrastructure are2428exposed.2429    In conclusion, after decades of intensive use followed by2430prolonged inaction, our forests face unprecedented stress from2431wildfire, insects, and disease and drought. We must implement2432proactive management at a meaningful scale, informed by robust2433science, and supported by a prepared workforce and regional2434infrastructure. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.2435    [The prepared statement of Dr. DeLuca follows:]24362437   Prepared Statement of Thomas H., DeLuca, Ph.D., Dean, College of2438  Forestry, Oregon State University; Director, Oregon Forest Research2439                     Laboratory, OSU, Corvallis, OR24402441    Chairman LaMalfa, Vice Chair Moore, Ranking Member Salinas, Vice2442Ranking Member Riley, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for2443the opportunity to testify today on the role of active management in2444promoting forest health, including wildfire resilience, and on the2445potential for National Forestlands to contribute to additional domestic2446timber production. My name is Thomas DeLuca; I serve as Dean of the2447College of Forestry at Oregon State University (OSU).2448    The U.S. Forest Service stewards approximately 193 million acres of2449National Forest System lands. Following direction from Executive Order245014225, Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production (signed March24511, 2025), USDA Secretary Rollins issued a memo \1\ designating 1122452million acres--approximately 60% of the system--as an ``emergency2453situation'' to expedite active management and timber production.2454---------------------------------------------------------------------------2455    \1\ https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sm-1078-2456006.pdf.2457---------------------------------------------------------------------------2458    I fully agree with the position that the pace and scale of active2459management on these lands must increase. Our federally managed2460forestlands look much different today than they would have when2461European settlers first arrived. Much of today's National Forests, with2462the exception of lands that have been under long-term protection (such2463as National Parks and designated Wilderness areas) have been harvested,2464densely planted and managed primarily for timber production for2465decades. However, major reductions in active management starting in the24661980s, combined with deferred maintenance of roads and firebreaks as2467well as the exclusion of fire and of Indigenous stewardship on these2468landscapes, have resulted in many forests being dangerously2469overstocked, vulnerable to insects and disease, and at risk of high-2470intensity wildfires. Active, science-informed management is essential2471for restoring resilience and productivity to these forests.2472    I applaud meaningful policy and actions that can accelerate and2473increase science-informed management, but we face a key challenge I2474respectfully encourage this Committee to further consider: Can the2475Federal Government effectively achieve the active management outcomes2476needed on the collective of Federal forestlands while simultaneously2477implementing proposed USDA plans to reduce the workforce and research2478capacity needed to support this work?2479    There is a clear and present opportunity to increase timber2480production on previously managed forestlands and in the process restore2481forest health and fire resiliency. To restore forest health, reduce2482wildfire risk, and support a sustainable domestic timber supply, the2483strategy must be grounded in science and paired with investments in2484workforce, local capacity, and partnerships. The Forest Service cannot2485deliver science-based, regionally tailored management without people2486and resources to plan, implement, and monitor projects at scale. With2487this in mind, I share three key points for your consideration.24881. Federal Reductions in Force and Restructuring Proposals Undermine2489        Ability To Ramp Up Localized Active Management2490    Secretary Rollins issued a memorandum \2\ on July 24 to propose2491reorganization plans for the Department of Agriculture and the U.S.2492Forest Service. This proposal outlined key goals, including2493streamlining agency processes, removing barriers to success, and2494enhancing the ability of Federal employees to interface with their2495constituents. The USDA reorganization plan to centralize personnel and2496resources in regional hubs may offer administrative efficiencies;2497however, this action risks undermining the foundation of effective2498natural resource management by losing local knowledge and partnerships,2499trust, and ecological specificity that are critical to natural resource2500management.2501---------------------------------------------------------------------------2502    \2\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/07/24/2503secretary-rollins-announces-usda-reorganization-restoring-departments-2504core-mission-supporting.2505---------------------------------------------------------------------------2506    Workforce reductions are already constraining Federal capacity.2507Although the total number of staff departures is difficult to2508determine, a July Reuters investigation reported that as many as 5,0002509USFS employees--or 15% of the workforce--left the agency in the last 52510months.\3\ This is a rapid and destabilizing loss for the agency that2511is now tasked with ramping up management efforts across the nation's2512forests.2513---------------------------------------------------------------------------2514    \3\ https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-wildfires-rage-2515trump-staff-cuts-force-firefighters-clean-toilets-critics-say-2025-07-251621/.2517---------------------------------------------------------------------------2518    The cuts that have occurred across Federal agencies supporting2519forestry and natural resource management have disproportionately fallen2520on early-career staff, often during probationary periods, as well as2521veteran employees with legacy knowledge nearing retirement. The2522reduction in both cohorts simultaneously creates not only a significant2523gap in knowledge transfer within the agencies, but a missed opportunity2524to onboard young professionals trained in the latest science and2525management approaches.2526    Likewise, for forestry and natural resources graduates entering the2527workforce, the opportunities to contribute the latest scientific2528knowledge and best practice to the field are dwindling, despite the2529need for their expertise increasing. Anecdotally, in Oregon State2530University's job posting system for students, the USDA Forest Service2531posted more than 270 full-time, seasonal, and internship opportunities2532for OSU students during the 2023-24 academic year. For the 2024-252533academic year, the agency posted only 13. The impact of the loss of2534these internship opportunities is still being assessed, but at a2535minimum they represent a significant loss in opportunities for students2536in forestry and the natural resources.2537    The USDA reorganization proposal also includes moving from2538regionally located scientists and local field managers in favor of a2539centralized USFS research and development office in Fort Collins,2540Colorado. While this may be administratively efficient, it risks2541ignoring the ecological complexity of distinct forest types across the2542country. Co-location of regional offices where forest management2543activities take place fosters collaboration, accelerates innovation,2544and supports the training of the next generation of scientists and land2545managers. These partnerships are often rooted in shared landscapes and2546mutual investment in local outcomes--something that is difficult to2547replicate from a distant hub.25482. USFS Research Enterprise Reductions Hinder Science-Informed2549        Management Practices To Support Forest Health and Productivity2550    Second, and closely related to overall USFS workforce reductions in2551regional field staff, are the implications for the U.S. Forest Service2552Research Enterprise. Colleagues at the USFS report that headcount in2553the agency's research and development arm has dropped 25 percent--2554nearly 400 permanent employees--since 2024. At the Pacific Northwest2555Research Station specifically, which is co-located at Oregon State2556University's Corvallis campus, staff declined by 60 positions, or 242557percent, over the same period. Although Congress has allocated funds2558for additional R&D staff, hiring freezes prevent the agency from2559filling these critical roles.2560    The USFS research enterprise plays a critical role in advancing2561American forestry. Its synergy with universities ensures that science2562is regionally focused, grounded in local eco-regions, and responsive to2563the needs of forest-dependent communities. The proposal to further2564reduce headcounts and centralize USFS staff in Fort Collins, Colorado,2565risks further weakening the ties that sustain joint research, student2566mentorship, and rapid knowledge exchange between the agency and2567universities such as Oregon State University on a local and regional2568scale.2569    We cannot manage today's forests without science-based practices2570that are continuously updated based on ever-evolving threats to our2571forests, including increasingly hot, dry conditions, novel insects and2572pathogens, and exotic plants to name a few. For decades, many Federal2573forestlands were intensively managed, followed by decades of minimal2574management. The resulting landscapes are primed for disease, insect2575outbreaks, drought stress, and catastrophic wildfire.2576    Rather than creating efficiencies or improving the ability to2577readily adapt to changing conditions, centralization would raise costs2578and reduce opportunities for field-based science--science that is2579essential to effective forest management, timber production, wildfire2580risk reduction, and long-term forest health. Research conducted by OSU2581and the USFS Pacific Northwest Research Station, for instance,2582demonstrates that carefully applied thinning and the reintroduction of2583prescribed fire can restore resiliency to these forests. Innovations in2584wildfire risk reduction, wood utilization, and forest management2585technologies continue to grow through such collaborative partnerships.2586    Equally important is the role of the USFS experimental forest2587network. Long-term ecological data collection at sites such as the H.J.2588Andrews Experimental Forest have provided irreplaceable insights into2589how forests function for more than 75 years. The H.J. Andrews leverages2590approximately three times the money invested by the USFS, including2591from OSU, to support this work. No other government agency or industry2592outside of the USFS is positioned or has the incentives to support the2593scientific work currently advanced by USFS and the associated knowledge2594generation that supports forestry on both public and private lands.2595Interruptions to these datasets would represent permanent losses to our2596collective understanding of forest ecosystems.2597    Centralization would also reduce opportunities for the local2598collaborations that make science actionable--partnerships with Tribes,2599state agencies, industry, and communities--as well as limit training2600opportunities for graduate students and the next generation of forest2601stewards. While virtual tools can help, they cannot replace the value2602of shared landscapes and on-the-ground collaboration. Over time, this2603shift would narrow perspective, slow innovation, and weaken the2604scientific foundation for National Forest policy.2605    It is also essential to recognize that forest management challenges2606differ greatly by region. The nation's strongest concentrations of2607forestry capacity are in the Pacific Northwest and the Southeast.2608Centralizing USFS R&D in a single hub ignores this reality and risks2609one-size-fits-all solutions that fail to account for ecological2610diversity and regional economies.2611    Finally, not all forest management is fuels management. Practices2612must be grounded in science and legal frameworks to balance ecological,2613economic, and social goals. Federal and state governments, Tribes,2614universities, communities, nonprofits, and industry all offer tools,2615knowledge, and partnerships to adopt more active and sustainable forest2616management. But this requires that the USFS research enterprise remain2617robust, well-resourced, and regionally engaged. Without that, our2618ability to expand active management at scale--and do it responsibly--2619will be compromised.26203. Rescinding the Roadless Rule Distracts from Priority Management2621        Activities that Improve Forest Health and Resilience2622    There is a large body of research to strongly support the urgent2623need to expand active management to restore forest health and reduce2624wildfire risk, and I again applaud efforts to accelerate this work. But2625using wildfire mitigation as the justification to rescind the 20012626Roadless Rule is a distraction from where treatments are most urgently2627needed.2628    The Roadless Rule restricts new road construction on approximately262958 million acres of the 193 million acres of National Forest lands.2630Removal of protections in these roadless areas has been proposed with2631the goal, as stated by Secretary Rollins in an Aug. 27 press2632release,\4\ to ``properly manage our Federal lands to create healthy,2633resilient, and productive forests for generations to come,'' with a2634particular concern for wildfire mitigation and timber production.2635---------------------------------------------------------------------------2636    \4\ https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/08/27/2637secretary-rollins-opens-next-step-roadless-rule-rescission.2638---------------------------------------------------------------------------2639    Rescinding the Roadless Rule risks diverting resources away from2640urgent priorities, which include restoring resilience where people,2641homes, communities, economies, and ecosystems are most vulnerable.2642    While there may be some benefit to both wildfire mitigation and2643timber supply by accessing roadless areas, the costs far outweigh the2644benefits from both an environmental and economic perspective. Most of2645these acres are steep, remote, and costly to access for timber harvest.2646Historically, roads were built where it was economically viable to2647harvest and haul timber and areas left without roads were often too2648costly or impractical to develop. This remains true today. And, if2649anything, the distance from un-roaded lands to active mills is further2650today due to the large number of mill closures over the last 30 years.2651    Rescinding the rule also won't significantly mitigate wildfire2652risk. Wildfire risk is based on three factors: the likelihood that a2653wildfire will happen in a specific place, the potential intensity of a2654fire when it does happen, and the values at risk. The highest priority2655for reducing wildfire risk is the wildland-urban interface, where2656people, property, and infrastructure are most exposed. Fuels treatments2657near communities, watersheds, and critical habitats provide the2658greatest benefit. By contrast, dedicating scarce resources to build2659roads into steep backcountry for timber and fire suppression diverts2660attention from where it matters most (Downing, et al. 2022).\5\2661---------------------------------------------------------------------------2662    \5\ https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs_journals/2022/2663rmrs_2022_downing_w001.pdf.2664---------------------------------------------------------------------------2665    This is supported by scientific research indicating that wilderness2666and inventoried roadless areas experience fewer ignitions than roaded2667``front-country'' areas, where human-caused fires dominate. According2668to a recent study, 84% of ignitions nationally are human-caused, and2669they overwhelmingly occur where roads already exist (Balch, et al.26702017).\6\ While roads can improve suppression access, they also2671increase ignition risk, facilitate invasive species spread, and2672fragment habitat. (Johnston, et al. 2021).\7\2673---------------------------------------------------------------------------2674    \6\ https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/pdfs/2675BalchPNAS-2017.pdf.2676    \7\ https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac13ee/2677pdf.2678---------------------------------------------------------------------------2679Conclusion2680    The health and resilience of our nation's forests depend on active,2681science-informed management. After decades of both intensive use and2682prolonged inaction, our forests face unprecedented stress from2683wildfire, insects, disease, and drought. To mitigate, we must implement2684proactive management at a meaningful scale.2685    The need to increase pace and scale has been acknowledged across2686multiple Administrations, on both sides of the aisle, and I commend2687this Administration for prioritizing the health and resiliency of2688Federal forestlands. If policy directives alone could achieve this,2689however, it would have been done by now. Real progress demands2690investment in the people, science, and infrastructure that make2691management possible. That means sustaining a skilled Federal workforce,2692supporting the U.S. Forest Service research enterprise and enabling2693collaboration with research institutions and other partners. It also2694means ensuring sufficient regional milling capacity and innovative wood2695products like cross-laminated timber (``CLT''), other mass timber2696components, and composites to process and use material removed through2697restoration and fuels reduction treatments. Without these, even the2698best policy goals cannot be met.2699    I also want to recognize and commend the Administration for2700advancing programs like the Joint Chiefs' Landscape Restoration2701Partnership. One of the recently funded projects--the Oregon-Hood River2702Wildfire & Watershed Project,\8\ in which Oregon State University's2703Extension Fire Program is a partner--is a model for how Federal2704investment can align with local expertise to achieve real results. By2705bringing agencies, research institutions, and communities together,2706this project will reduce wildfire risk, protect watersheds, and2707strengthen community resilience. This is exactly the kind of science-2708based, collaborative work we should be expanding nationwide.2709---------------------------------------------------------------------------2710    \8\ https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/joint-chiefs-2711landscape-restoration-partnership/summary-of-fy25-selected-joint.2712---------------------------------------------------------------------------2713    By contrast, cuts to staffing, proposed consolidation of regional2714offices and research efforts, and distractions such as revisiting the2715Roadless Rule will not help us reach these goals. They will hinder2716progress at the very moment we need to accelerate it. We should be2717focusing instead on scaling treatments in priority landscapes,2718expanding partnerships with Tribes, states, and communities, and2719building on the innovations that universities and the Forest Service2720have already developed together.2721    If we are serious about restoring forest health, reducing wildfire2722risk, and supporting rural economies, we must invest in capacity--this2723includes people, businesses, and resilient communities--not reduce it.2724By pairing active management with robust science, a prepared workforce,2725and regional infrastructure, we can truly help ``properly manage our2726Federal lands to create healthy, resilient, and productive forests for2727generations to come,'' as Secretary Rollins and the Administration have2728stated.27292730    The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. DeLuca. We will now go to2731Member questions, and I will recognize first, Ranking Member2732Salinas.2733    Ms. Salinas. Thank you Chairman LaMalfa. So, let's just2734dive right in. Dr. DeLuca, your testimony gave us some valuable2735insight and overview of the importance and impacts of2736partnerships between universities, like Oregon State and the2737Forest Service, in advancing research and skilled workforce2738development. Can you share and dive in a little deeper on some2739examples of research and/or projects of the College of Forestry2740that you might be working on with the Forest Service right now,2741and how do these projects help inform Federal land management?2742    Dr. DeLuca. Yes. We work directly with the Forest Service2743on innumerable projects. Some that are particularly of2744relevance to this Committee would be on the Wildfire and Water2745Security Research Project, which deals with looking at the2746effect of wildfire on municipal drinking water quality and2747availability. And that work was a joint project between U.S.2748Forest Service and several universities, including Oregon State2749University. That project was actually rescinded just recently,2750but it is an example of the type of work we are doing together.2751    We also have the extensive work on the H.J. Andrews2752Experimental Forest. It is the longest-standing, long-term2753ecological research site in the nation, and it is a2754collaboration between U.S. Forest Service and Oregon State2755University, and in that site, it has burned three times in the2756last 4 years. We have had fires on that site three times in the2757last 4 years, which opens up incredible opportunities for2758studying wildfire recovery and restoration, and those are2759projects that are being initiated on the forests today. I would2760go on, but I want to be--I recognize time limitations.2761    Ms. Salinas. Thank you, and I would imagine that the2762information and the research that you are gathering actually2763helps inform policies then on the ground and for the Federal2764Government to figure out which direction to take and be most2765efficient and less wasteful.2766    Dr. DeLuca. Yes, absolutely. I think research is2767exceptionally important and having science-informed policy,2768policy that incorporates unbiased information, that is built2769out of not just individual studies, but a corpus of data that2770is collected over tens of years. And especially in a field such2771as forestry, that long-term science is exceptionally important,2772and that is where programs, such as the Experimental Forest2773Network within the U.S. Forest Service, is so important because2774it provides that continual data collection over the lifecycle2775of forests and rotations.2776    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. The Trump Administration has cited2777improving fire prevention efforts as a justification for2778rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule, claiming that the decision2779will reduce the risk of wildfire--I mentioned this in my2780opening statement--but research also shows that human activity2781is the leading cause of fire. In fact, according to the Forest2782Service's own data, humans cause upwards of 85 percent of2783wildfire fires. Further, a study from the Wilderness Society2784found that fire ignition density rates are highest within 502785meters of roads. So, again to Dr. DeLuca, what does the2786scientific literature say about roadless area and fire risk,2787and do you see rescission of the Roadless Rule as a meaningful2788step toward improving our fire preparedness and response?2789    Dr. DeLuca. Yes. We know that in areas where humans are2790present, we have more fire ignitions. We also, of course, have2791lightning fire ignitions or natural ignitions, but humans2792greatly increase the number of ignitions that occur on the2793landscape. So, once you build roads into areas, you increase2794access and you increase the potential ignitions. Whether those2795fires erupt into full-scale wildfires is dependent on whether2796there are conditions that are conducive to that fire erupting.2797However, the roadless area and the existing designated2798wilderness areas are areas that were not managed heavily in the2799past because of the lack of roading and have the lower2800densities, stand densities, than those areas that were managed2801and then not managed. Those areas, you open the stand up, and2802you have higher density. And so, following--especially with the2803combination of no management combined with active fire2804suppression increases the severity of fires that occur in that2805area. And, of course, those areas are closer to where2806communities exist, and that is where the effort to reduce fuels2807should be prioritized at this stage.2808    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back.2809    The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Salinas. I will now2810recognize our Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Thompson from2811Pennsylvania.2812    Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Thanks again2813for the witnesses for being here. In many forests, including my2814National Forest, Allegheny National Forest, which I represent,2815we have significant challenges with invasive species. Ms.2816Barnes, can you speak to the role that state forestry agencies2817play with combating these invasives that undermine forest2818health?2819    Ms. Barnes. Yes. So, invasive species is something we take2820very seriously, and trying to combat those and eradicate those2821on the landscape is something that should be done. These can2822add fuel to the fire and growth to fires and actually lead to2823catastrophic wildfires in the communities, so working to2824control those, to eradicate those. In our fuels program, we2825work to provide projects that can help to reduce those and2826restore native vegetation in the landscape, which is a very,2827very important component to reducing the risk of catastrophic2828wildfire.2829    Mr. Thompson. Yes, and I really appreciate the role the2830partnership between USDA and our state agencies. That teamwork2831really does make a difference for us. In Pennsylvania, we don't2832have massive wildfires, but we have small ones, pretty easily2833managed, but it is the invasives that do the damage in the2834Allegheny National Forest.2835    Ms. Barnes, in your testimony, you mentioned support for2836the so-called Cottonwood fix, which was included in the Farm,2837Food, and National Security Act of 2024, and due to the2838Cottonwood decision 2015, the Forest Service is required to re-2839initiate consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service on2840completed forest plans when a new species is listed under the2841Endangered Species Act, or new information is brought forward.2842Now, Forest Service Chiefs, both under Republican and2843Democratic Administrations, have said that further consultation2844isn't necessary as it would require more than 100 forest plans2845to be revised, costing taxpayer dollars and agency staff time2846but with no real benefits. A partial fix was provided by2847Congress in 2018 but expired in 2023. Do you have any further2848comment on Cottonwood and why we need to fix it once and for2849all?2850    Ms. Barnes. Yes. I would just say that this is an important2851thing to look at. I think fixing this would be helpful, also2852looking at the forest action plans and how they address that.2853This is an avenue that is a strategic plan for the forests, but2854paying special attention on how we can streamline matters, how2855we can make permanent fixes for something is something that we2856are always looking for, and ways to get things done in a more2857streamlined and better process.2858    Mr. Thompson. Very good, and then just one final question.2859In 2014, I had the privilege of chairing the Conservation,2860Energy, and Forestry Subcommittee that included some other2861jurisdictions and then--and then the bill in 2018 all provided2862some categorical exemptions, some tools to the U.S. Forest2863Service. So, I will open this up to the whole panel: is there2864anything that comes to mind of new tools that we need to equip2865the U.S. Forest Service with so they can do their job of2866managing the forest in a healthy way? And I measure health2867environmentally by the health of the forest through active2868management, tempering, replanting to the environment, and,2869quite frankly, through the economies for the municipalities2870that we are struggling right now to get Secure Rural Schools2871reauthorized, which is a crime. I mean, I understand out West,2872there are schools that have closed because the Secure Rural2873Schools has expired, and as hard as this Committee has worked,2874we have had a difficult time getting the rest of Congress to2875reauthorize that. And so, are there any tools that come to mind2876that you think that we certainly should consider within the2877remaining portion of the Farm Bill 2.0?2878    Dr. Monohan. I would be happy to respond to that, Chairman2879Thompson.2880    Mr. Thompson. Please, and thank you for the visit.2881    Dr. Monohan. Heck yes.2882    Mr. Thompson. Yes, hosting--our great Chairman and I, we2883had a great visit to your headquarters there. Very impressive.2884    Dr. Monohan. We are very honored to have you come visit us.2885My testimony today is speaking about a process, an agreement2886type that is already in place that would allow much of what you2887are talking about to continue to go forward. And the challenge2888that we have with that agreement type is that our Forest2889Service partners aren't familiar enough to feel comfortable2890using it when it is new to them, so one of the opportunities we2891have is to work with them on training so that they can use a2892Service First agreement. The Service First would not2893necessarily allow harvest. It is basic forestry practices,2894right, to allow for fuels reduction, prescribed fire, but we2895would need other tools to do more sustainable harvesting, and2896that could be the Good Neighbor Agreement, and, again, that is2897new to them, this new version of it, and that is what takes2898time.2899    Mr. Thompson. Yes, and my time has expired, but I would2900encourage our witnesses, anything you can put in writing and2901forward to our Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee.2902It is time to get 2.0 done, and I want to make sure, just like2903in 2014 and 2018, we have a robust forestry title in what will2904be the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2025. So,2905thanks so much. I yield back.2906    The Chairman. I appreciate that. Good work, Mr. Chairman,2907and it doesn't always meet the eye for people that a lot of2908great forestry work is getting done in our farm bills, so thank2909you, sir. Now, with that, will recognize my colleague from2910California, Mr. Costa.2911    Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman of the2912Subcommittee and the Chairman of the full Committee, for2913holding this hearing. The purpose, of course, is promoting2914forest health and resiliency through improved active2915management. Frankly, I think that we need to examine the whole2916effort that is going forth between the United States Department2917of Agriculture and the Forest Service--U.S. Forest Service2918agency in terms of this change that--of rearranging priorities2919and the management for the Forest Service. Frankly, I am2920puzzled, and I think I have suggested to the Chairman that we2921need to have greater oversight in this reorganization act2922because I don't think it is clear how--ultimately, what the2923goals are going to be and how it is going to impact the2924mission, in this case, of the U.S. Forest Service.2925    I have been here for 21 years, and I think through2926Administrations of both parties, there has been a lack of focus2927and emphasis on the two areas that we are talking about here2928today: forest management and the efforts to provide support for2929fire suppression. And what we have done is we have had a series2930of circumstances in which we appropriate money for forest2931management, but the fire season, as the Chairman noted in his2932opening statement, is no longer a season, but it is year round2933throughout the West. And we run out of money to deal with the2934fire suppression, we borrow that money from forest management,2935and we don't do a very good job in either, in my view.2936    Let me, to the point, talk about an effort that took place2937by a number of us a few years ago to provide a 10 year wildfire2938crisis strategy, which invested $1.4 billion to deal with2939forest management, and, Dr. Monohan, I didn't get a chance to2940see you last night, but I am glad you are here because I would2941like you to comment on this. It deals with ten high-risk2942landscapes in eight western states. It was a tragedy, what2943occurred in Chairman LaMalfa's district in Paradise, as we all2944noted. We had the Creek Fire in my area some few years ago that2945lasted 2\1/2\ months and burned over 400,000 acres of forests.2946Right now as I speak, we have the Garnet Fire. In 2 weeks, it2947has consumed over 60,000 acres, and it is 15 percent contained.2948I am wondering exactly what we are doing, and they--the Forest2949Service--the USDA has removed from their website this effort on2950the Inflation Reduction Act (Pub. L. 117-169) on $1.4 billion2951to manage these ten high-risk areas. I don't understand why2952they are doing that, why we are depleting resources from the2953Forest Service that needs it now at this critical time with2954climate change and other factors that we are dealing with.2955    Dr. Monohan, would you please comment on where we are2956putting our resources and the reduction of people that need to2957be there, who have the expertise and the experience to combat2958the challenges with this fire season?2959    Dr. Monohan. Thank you. I think you put--you are right on2960it, Congressman Costa. We have separated fire from forestry.2961Fire is an important part of forestry and can actually be good2962fire to help manage our forests and keep it so that2963catastrophic wildfire doesn't destroy them. Because we have2964literally separated those funding streams at the very, very2965top, we currently have a forest management system that responds2966to catastrophic fire after the fact.2967    Mr. Costa. And it makes no sense. I mean, it is2968inconsistent.2969    Dr. Monohan. Correct. We need long-term sustainable funding2970for ongoing forest management that really has nothing to do2971with harvesting huge amounts of trees. These forests require2972constant work and maintenance, and prescribed fire needs to be2973a part of that, right, as does other types of fuels reductions2974so we can get to it.2975    Mr. Costa. Absolutely. We have lost over 20 percent of the2976giant sequoia trees since 2015, and right now, this Garnet Fire2977is threading another sequoia grove. I wrote a letter yesterday,2978many of my California colleagues supported it, to the Secretary2979of Agriculture to put a potential focus right now. They are2980using Chinook helicopters for night flying, which is good, but2981we need to provide other resources so that we don't have a2982repeat of what occurred during the Creek Fire some 3 years ago.2983    Dr. Monohan. I agree completely with you. I am very sad to2984see what is happening to the sequoias right now, and, really,2985this about getting ahead of the next catastrophic wildfire2986already.2987    Mr. Costa. Yes. My time is expiring here, Mr. Chairman, but2988I think Mr. Dane talked about the closure of 130 mills to2989provide a logging resource. And there is a lot of complexity2990that is involved in our supply chain that I think we need to2991really examine when we look at supply of wood materials from2992not only Canada, but from Brazil, and how we keep our supply2993chain focused in a way that makes sense for all the multiple2994uses that we use for wood products. And I know that we don't2995have time here, but there are a lot of facets to this important2996Subcommittee hearing. I commend you for doing that. I would2997like to say one other thing. I would like to invite the U.S.2998Department of Agriculture and the representative from the2999Forest Service to testify before the Committee as to what this3000reorganization means and what their end game is.3001    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Costa. That is certainly, our3002intention is, in further hearings, to have them in and get a3003handle on where we are right now because this Committee wants3004to be more active on that work, so I thank you. And to your3005other point, too, we need to have longer-term commitments from3006Forest Service supplies so that we can have the milling3007capacity, have the confidence they are going to be able to have3008a return on investment should they invest in more milling3009capacity. That would be huge. So, and last you mentioned some3010of the tragedy in our district. I am sorry you got a big fire3011going on in yours. This is--actually I was presented with two3012gavels, one for the Carr Fire in northern California and one3013for the Camp Fire. This is not an oversized gavel. I have just3014shrunk a little bit.3015    [Laughter.]3016    The Chairman. So, with that----3017    Mr. Costa. Well, the tragedy of our fires in the state and3018the West is something that I think we all share.3019    The Chairman. Big time, sir, yes, and our colleague in3020Oregon as well, we are dealing with that. So, let me recognize3021Mr. Baird for his opportunity, 5 minutes. Thank you.3022    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking3023Member, for holding this hearing, and then I always appreciate3024the witnesses making the effort to be here to give us your3025insight into whatever industry we are talking about. And, I got3026a brother that is involved in the forestry business or in the3027industry, and in Indiana, we have a lot of hardwoods, both red3028and white oak, cherry, walnut. And since we are talking about3029forestry management, the last thing I knew out of Indiana that3030through forest management, we end up having more growth than we3031do in the harvest, and so the timber is continuing to grow more3032than we are harvesting. And the other thing that I think we3033need to keep--and this just a comment, but timber, plus the3034wood industry, plus the furniture business, really provides us3035a long-term carbon sequestration, carbon storage. So, I think3036we ought to give the forest industry credit for doing that, but3037I better get back on course here, Mr. Chairman.3038    So, Scott, you laid out the serious decline in forest3039health and the urgent need to reduce hazardous fuels through3040active management. As Congress works to pass a farm bill this3041year, what provisions do you believe are the most critical to3042include now so we don't lose more time in tackling the wildfire3043crisis and supporting the logging industry? And I know you have3044probably addressed that in some of your other comments, but I3045will give you an opportunity to review that.3046    Mr. Dane. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, thank you very much.3047When it comes to reducing hazardous fuels, the obstacle there3048is what do you do with the low-value/no-value hazardous fuels,3049small-diameter unmerchantable timber, and we are really limited3050on what we can do because of the lack of infrastructure to3051utilize that. And we find that the only viable markets right3052now for that are biomass power generation, and they have been3053cut out of the tax credits that they have been a part of for3054many, many years, and so that jeopardizes those existing3055markets. Now, if we can develop new markets, such as3056sustainable aviation fuel from forest-based feedstock, to3057utilize that, that is great, but we are not there yet. So, we3058need to support the biomass power sector as the only viable3059option for utilization of hazardous fuels in many cases.3060    As an example, when the Inflation Reduction Act passed and3061there was money for hazardous fuel reduction in there, I spoke3062to the White House and I said, ``That is terrific, but what are3063you going to do with the biomass once we collect it?'' And they3064said, ``What do you mean?'' I said, ``We have such a limited3065infrastructure to utilize that, that we don't really have the3066ability to transport it 100 miles or more under the current3067cost structure.'' So, they said, ``What are you going to do3068with it?'' I said, ``We are going to push it up in a pile, and3069we are going to light it on fire and open burn.'' So, that is3070an example of why we need to have the markets to support the3071utilization of hazardous fuels.3072    Mr. Baird. I can't resist asking--when you talk about the3073biomass, I can't resist asking this question about biochar, if3074there are any comments you care to make on that in that regard.3075    Mr. Dane. Yes, there are quite a few developments in the3076biochar sector. In fact, I was meeting this week with a couple3077of representatives that have biomass power plants, and they are3078going to site biochar facilities on their biomass power plant3079sites as well. So, it is a new product, but it has a lot of3080potential, and forest-based feedstock would be the primary3081feedstock for developing biochar.3082    Mr. Baird. Thank you, and we got about 1 minute left for3083me. So, any of the other three of you have any thoughts in that3084arena?3085    Dr. DeLuca. Well, just really briefly, following up on the3086biochar issue, one of the key things that has to happen for3087biochar to be successful as a product is to demonstrate its3088value. It isn't like applying a fertilizer. It doesn't yield at3089a direct yield response that you know what you are going to get3090out of it in a given year. And so, there are studies that need3091to be conducted to demonstrate its long-term value as a soil3092amendment because right now, there just isn't a market for3093biochar. So, the break-even haul distances to get the stuff to3094a place where you can convert it as an energy source is a3095problem, but if we can have that value add of biochar, it would3096make a big difference.3097    Mr. Baird. But it is almost pure carbon, and so it would3098really contribute to soil health.3099    Dr. DeLuca. Yes. Yep.3100    Mr. Baird. Do I have an opportunity to ask one more3101question or----3102    The Chairman. Go fast, and we will let you.3103    Mr. Baird. Real fast. Anyone else?3104    Dr. Monohan. I would love to chime in about the biochar3105conversation. In our watersheds, we experienced the California3106Gold Rush 150 years ago, and we have mine-impacted acres from3107hydraulic mining. This is denuded areas with no topsoil. These3108areas are excellent for biochar amendments, and we have done3109some--both lab tests and field studies with Pacific Southwest3110Research Station partners to look at biochar and its benefits3111of putting that carbon sequestration benefits included on that3112hydraulic mine-impacted landscape, and we would really like to3113continue to pursue that. In fact, I mentioned that Forest3114Service sometimes are so limited in their capacity, that even3115though we brought funded grants to them to continue this work,3116they had a hard time accepting and going forward with it3117because they were at max.3118    Mr. Baird. We better end there, and I thank you and3119appreciate your responses, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.3120    The Chairman. All right. Thank you, Mr. Baird, and, Dr.3121Monohan, I was just noting you said 150. Actually, yesterday3122was California's 175th birthday, so happy birthday, home state.3123Yes, time flies, doesn't it?3124    [Laughter.]3125    The Chairman. It is also my mother-in-law's birthday that3126day. I won't say what that number is.3127    [Laughter.]3128    The Chairman. So, anyway, Mr. Riley from New York.3129    Mr. Riley. Thanks. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I was just about3130to jump in and bail you out, but you saved yourself there3131with----3132    [Laughter.]3133    Mr. Riley. So, where I am from in upstate New York, we know3134a thing or two about bad trade deals, lost a lot of jobs over3135the last generation because of them, and I think that what we3136are seeing right now with our current situation with the3137logging industry is really, really bad. Mr. Dane, in your3138testimony, you talked a bit about this. I saw you submitted the3139Roadmap to Recovery, and in it, you identified a bunch of top3140priorities for your Council, and one of those was fixing our3141trade system. It is also a top priority for my constituents. I3142have one for--just as one example.3143    I have a constituent in Green County, whose family business3144employs dozens of our neighbors. They have become a real, real3145leader in sustainability in the community, and their business3146is mostly domestic, but, historically, they have depended on3147access to foreign markets to stay afloat. And speaking of3148staying afloat, she has literally had logs floating in the3149ocean since March when China retaliated against Trump's tariffs3150regime, and she has lost access to these markets, which is3151inflicting a ton of damage on her small family business. And3152you meet these folks, they are people who are working their3153tails off, they are doing everything that has been asked of3154them, and all of a sudden, they have the rug ripped out from3155underneath them, and it is just simply not fair to put that3156family and that family business in that situation.3157    And so, my office, we have been pressing USDA and USTR to3158make this right for that small family business and their dozens3159of employees, but I am pretty frustrated because I don't think3160anybody is treating this with the urgency that it demands.3161Around this place in Washington, it is bureaucracy and red tape3162and nonsense. Back home, these are real jobs for real people in3163a real community doing real work, and it is really important.3164And your testimony said that there are 150 mills that have3165closed in just the last 36 months, and that is just not an3166acceptable trajectory for us. And so, my question for you is,3167generally, for my constituent, any thoughts that you have for3168them, any thoughts that you have for us and for this Committee3169to make sure that folks in that situation aren't having so much3170damage inflicted on them because of the current trade situation3171that we are in.3172    Mr. Dane. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Congressman. I3173am glad you brought that up. The trade policy that we are3174talking about is extremely complex, and there--it is--it is far3175more than the softwood lumber which gets all the attention. I3176have been in touch with your constituents up in New York, and3177we have made it very clear that we support the softwood lumber3178tariffs and duties. However, we do not support the impacts to3179hardwood exports, the point being is these markets are limited3180in the United States. Most of the people up near your district3181are sourcing or marketing domestically about 50 percent of3182their hardwood, but there is no other market left beyond that3183capacity, so the China market was extremely important. And3184until we get more domestic markets established in the United3185States, the American Loggers Council supports the export of3186hardwood logs to China, and we have made that clear to the3187Administration in our discussions with them as well.3188    Mr. Riley. Well, I appreciate that very much, and I think3189what you described is, as I understand it, with my3190constituent's business, exactly the case. They have a3191significant, even a majority domestic market, but that market3192can't absorb everything, and so they have depended on access to3193foreign markets. I think all of it goes to the point that a3194smart, strategic, targeted trade policy in this country needs3195to make sure that Americans are operating on a level playing3196field, and it needs to be thoughtful instead of just throwing a3197bunch of stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks. And we3198are seeing, if we had a thoughtful strategic trade policy, this3199business would be thriving, would be continuing to thrive, and3200so I appreciate the nuance that you are thinking about this.3201And, Mr. Chairman, with that, I will yield back.3202    The Chairman. All right. Thank you, Mr. Riley. I will3203recognize Mr. Wied from Wisconsin.3204    Mr. Wied. Well, thank you, Chairman LaMalfa and Ranking3205Member Salinas, for this hearing today.3206    Wisconsin has a strong heritage with the forest products3207industry, employing over 57,000 people and contributing nearly3208$27 billion to our state economy. The industry ranks second in3209economic output for our state. Wisconsin has been a leader in3210the lumber industry for nearly 200 years, and I am proud that3211my home county, Brown County, is the leader for the state in3212terms of jobs and output. Without proper management of our3213forests, the rest of this incredibly important industry for3214Wisconsin's 8th District would cease to exist. As far as forest3215management, I am proud to represent the Menominee Nation, who3216are frequently recognized as managing one of the most3217sustainable forests in the world. I am proud to serve on this3218Subcommittee for this reason and have enjoyed being able to3219learn more about the state of American forestry and how we as3220Congress can do a better job.3221    So, as I got to Congress, I immediately recognized the3222importance of Wisconsin's timber and paper industry and,3223specifically, maintaining and improving the safety and3224efficiency of it. Even though it is a transportation- and3225infrastructure-referred bill, I wanted to reference how proud I3226was to introduce the bipartisan Safe Routes Act of 2025 (H.R.32272166) to promote exactly this by opening up more short-distance3228routes for loggers. Mr. Dane, and I will open this up to anyone3229here, what are some more creative ways we could promote safety3230and efficiency for loggers?3231    Mr. Dane. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, it is nice to meet3232you. I have heard a lot about you from Henry Simbeck who was3233here yesterday with me doing some work.3234    Mr. Wied. Yes.3235    Mr. Dane. A couple of things to think about. You referenced3236the Menominee Tribe, and they are known nationally as one of3237the most productive forest programs in the country. And when I3238talked to them, they told me that their chief with their3239forestland said you start at one end and you log across,3240selectively, you practice forest management until you get to3241the other end, and then you turn around and you start over3242again. They recognize sustainable forestry and practice that as3243well as other Tribes, I am sure, across the country. Now, when3244it comes to safer routes, I really appreciate that. That is an3245important issue. We have no consistency in the United States3246for efficient transportation.3247    Mr. Wied. Yes.3248    Mr. Dane. We have states that can run 99,000 pounds, that3249can run 100,000 thousand pounds year round, different axle3250configurations, and they are forcing these logging trucks to3251avoid the interstate--that is what we are talking about, the3252interstate here--and use county and state roads.3253    Mr. Wied. Right.3254    Mr. Dane. In Minnesota, we used to have to run down a3255cobblestone road in Duluth, Minnesota, parallel to an3256interstate system. Now, we did get the law changed and allowed3257us to go around Duluth, Minnesota and use the interstate for a325823 mile corridor.3259    Mr. Wied. Yes.3260    Mr. Dane. That would be one step. Another thing for the3261farm bill would be the future careers in logging. Workforce3262development is critical issue. The timber industry is based on3263small, multigenerational family businesses. These are not large3264corporations. These are family businesses.3265    Mr. Wied. Yes.3266    Mr. Dane. And they just want to train their family members3267coming up, just like farmers can do right now, when their3268children are 16 and 17 years old to operate mechanized3269equipment. Logging is mechanized today. There is still hand3270filling, but the majority of it is mechanized. We just want3271that same opportunity to train the next generation coming up.3272The Secure Our Rural Schools that was mentioned here, for the3273first time it is not funded, and it is going to be3274catastrophic.3275    Mr. Wied. Yes.3276    Mr. Dane. This was designed to replace funding that was3277lost by the reduction of Federal timber harvesting receipts to3278keep these communities that are forestry dependent whole, and3279so Secure Our Rural Schools is important. And then Loggers3280Economic Assistance and Relief Act (H.R. 4665) was recently3281introduced by Congressman Golden, and it is cosponsored by3282Congressman Pete Stauber from Minnesota. We need to have some3283safety nets in place for these industries when markets are3284closing and stuff. And then, of course, the biomass power under3285the renewable fuel standard and the tax credits would go a long3286way as well, sir.3287    Mr. Wied. Great. Well, thank you. Anyone else? We have3288about 30 seconds.3289    Ms. Barnes. Mr. Chairman, if I may, in Utah, piggybacking3290off what he said, partnering with the colleges for rural3291education in our communities is something we focused on big.3292The forestry industry is somewhat depleted in our areas, so3293making sure that we can build that trade still in our rural3294communities is something that is very important. I would also3295say, in Utah, we have a different type of timber market, so not3296quite the same of what you are talking about, but also economic3297development is important in our communities, and also money3298from economic development, whether it is at the state or the3299local or even the Federal level, but to help these businesses3300get started up. And then also, long-term timber contracts that3301they can rely on in order to start producing, and get credit,3302and start up these businesses has been really important in3303Utah. Utah lost two of our mills recently to fires, and so3304trying to get those mills back online and getting them to be in3305a profitable manner has been really difficult with our market.3306    Mr. Wied. Yes. Great. All right. Well, thank you for being3307here, and with that I yield back.3308    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Wied. For those Members or3309staff that are monitoring our Committee on TV, et cetera, we3310are getting down to the last couple questions here. So, if they3311are on the sidelines or straddling other committees, I would3312encourage them to come to our Subcommittee if they wish. So,3313anyway, I will recognize myself for a little bit for questions3314of our panel. Again, thank you all for being here, and I will3315start with Mr. Dane.3316    You stated a bit earlier that the timber harvest in our3317forest system has declined by about 75 percent--I think this is3318from about the mid-1990s or so--from a high of about 13 billion3319board-feet to right around 3 billion board-feet right now, so,3320and even that number, 3 billion, is below what was actually3321authorized under current forest plans across the country. So,3322talk to me about that inventory. What does that mean as far as3323the number of board-feet we are growing each year versus the3324number of board-feet we are taking out?3325    Mr. Dane. Yes. The harvest volume is 25 percent of the3326growth volume on National Forests, so that----3327    The Chairman. So, juxtapose that with overcrowded trees and3328landscapes, and things like that. So, if we are going to be3329removing product at 25 percent of the growth, 3 to 1--1 to 3--3330how is that going to be successful long-term on thinning3331forests and getting back to a balance of fire safety and not3332overdraft of the--what is water supply. And it might be, we see3333when we have arid areas that go through drought, it exacerbates3334it. So, touch on that more specifically, please.3335    Mr. Dane. The USDA's announcement that they want to3336increase--in the President's announcement, they want to3337increase timber harvest by 25 percent, that would take us from33383 billion board-feet to 4 million board-feet, roughly3339speaking--4 billion board-feet. Excuse me.3340    The Chairman. So, in one sense, 25 percent sounds like a3341lot. On the other hand, if we are keeping up with just a mere3342fraction of what is growing out there, then that hardly even3343touches the issue level we should be. Do you agree with that3344or----3345    Mr. Dane. I agree with that, and you are correct, and the3346emphasis needs to really be placed on the western states.3347People look at Minnesota as an example where the Federal3348forests represent 11 percent of the forestland, and they only3349contribute four percent of the harvested volume. Now, that is--335011 percent, four percent, that is a small amount. When you are3351out West, you are looking at 50+ percent of Federal land out3352there. So it is much more dependent upon increasing the Federal3353timber supply to support the mills and increasing capacity for3354domestic production. So, the initial steps are not going to be3355sufficient to really address the hazard of the density at this3356time.3357    The Chairman. And where does the U.S. rank on imported3358lumber as far as other countries?3359    Mr. Dane. I am afraid I don't have that answer. I know3360where the U.S. ranks at the top.3361    The Chairman. My understanding, it is--up until China had3362their downturn in the economy, we were number two. Now we are3363the number one importer of wood products, so----3364    Mr. Dane. We are number one. Yes, sir.3365    The Chairman. I don't know how that makes much sense, but,3366Dr. Monohan, again, thank you for being part and for your--our3367interactions earlier on in NorCal. Appreciate that. You noted3368some hesitancy of Forest Service personnel to use new tools and3369authorities unless that has been a long established pattern.3370So, there have been discussions with Forest Service on3371developing training to help familiarize staff with such3372authorities, so can you talk a little more about what it takes3373to get personnel up to speed to be either aware of them or be3374comfortable or even aggressive on implementing them?3375    Dr. Monohan. Thank you, Chairman LaMalfa. The idea or the3376discussion we had with Chief Schultz and his Office of Tribal3377Relations, Reed Robinson, was to try and provide training3378materials that came from the Forest Service for the Forest3379Service, and that would be the most effective way to have3380grants and agreements folks, for example, become familiar with3381how to utilize the Service First authority with Tribes that are3382coming towards them. We work mostly with people directly in the3383districts, right--the silviculturists, the forest engineers,3384sometimes the forest ranger--to be able to identify work that3385is needed. Those are different folks than the ones that are3386doing the grants and agreements, and that connection between3387the two is not something an external partner can necessarily be3388the best at making. And so, by having those kinds of trainings,3389that is what we are hoping to be able to improve efficiencies3390for.3391    The Chairman. Okay. Thank you. My 5 minutes is expiring,3392but we are going to go to a second round, so I will recognize3393my colleague, Ms. Salinas, here for her second round.3394    Ms. Salinas. Thank you for the additional time, Chairman3395LaMalfa. So, I am going to go back to you, Dr. Monohan. The3396President's budget proposal includes significant cuts to3397states' Tribal and private forestry programs, and as we have3398been talking about, these programs provide technical and3399financial assistance to landowners and resource managers to3400help sustain the nation's forests and grasslands, protect3401communities from wildfire, and restore forest ecosystems. Can3402you dive in a little bit deeper and describe how Mooretown3403Rancheria interacts with these programs and what their3404elimination would actually mean for you and your Tribe?3405    Dr. Monohan. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member3406Salinas. We are in a time of great change. We are at an3407inflection point, and we are looking for the most efficient way3408to do the most basic forestry practices, and sustained funding3409for ongoing forest management is going to be a critical piece3410of that. Right now, the funding that we have the most of, the3411most types, is wildfire crisis funding, so it is after the3412horrible thing has taken place. It is that crisis funding that3413comes down to the districts, and it is a response to the3414wildfire. I think that forests have been in need of ongoing3415sustained funding for a really long time, and that will be3416ongoing.3417    Ms. Salinas. And would their elimination harm localities'3418ability to implement responsible forest management practices,3419and what would the effect be for economic development for3420Tribes?3421    Dr. Monohan. Every Tribe does forestry a little bit3422differently. For our Tribe, it could be devastating to not have3423Federal partners in order to do this work.3424    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. All right. So, I am struggling with3425trying to figure out what the Administration's plan is around3426forest management. I am hearing so many different things, and3427so, Dr. DeLuca, this question will go to you. Adding a billion3428board-feet of harvest on Federal forests and then this3429competing idea that we are seeing increases in pests and3430disease and wildfire risk, and I am not sure how you reconcile3431a calculated board-feet harvest with our goals on ecosystems3432and reducing pest disease and wildfires. Can you help explain3433how we get to balance and some of the scientific research3434around that?3435    Dr. DeLuca. I can try. It is--thank you. Yes, it is complex3436and I can try, but the whole problem here is complexity. I have3437been thinking about this as my fellow panelists have been3438talking. We have the significant problem. It is particularly3439bad in the West and in the dry forest types in particular. The3440value of the timber that exists in those landscapes, having3441been managed and then not managed, it is small-diameter, low-3442value material, and getting it to market is an enormous3443challenge onto itself. Historically, that was managed by Native3444American communities for millennia using fire. We are talking3445about trying to use mechanical treatments to get in and reduce3446the density of those stands, improve the forest health of those3447stands. That requires resources because of the fact that the3448value is low and the distance to markets is far, so it is very3449complex.3450    At the same time, the value of timber has dropped through3451the floor recently, and mills are in trouble. The existing mill3452infrastructure is in trouble. So, as we are trying to ramp up3453production on Federal land just by 25 percent, where is that3454going to go? It does provide an opportunity for private3455landowners to go into a longer rotation, but they have to be3456able to sustain that longer rotation in terms of, economically,3457is it viable to them. So, it is incredibly complex, but I3458believe that we know where the biggest problems exist on the3459landscape, and we know where the most structures and people's3460lives are at risk, and that, of course, is where we have3461managed heavily in the past and then we ceased that management.3462So, targeting near communities and in areas of dry forest type3463make the most sense.3464    The problem is the highest-value timber isn't going to be3465located there. It is going to be in wet, more moist forest3466types and in areas where, yes, forest health treatments are3467needed, but that may be that it is not at the level of priority3468as the dry forest types, which lack the mill infrastructure.3469So, sorry to just amp up the complexity perhaps, but I think3470that Dr. Monohan's point about fire having been a part of this3471landscape, it is a fundamental part of the ecology of these3472forests, and we need to learn how to live with fire and how to3473work with fire. And that means using those mechanical3474treatments that allow us to get fire back on the land then3475allow fire to do the work that it normally does in a way that3476doesn't threaten communities and threaten lives and economies.3477    There is also more to say about private land management and3478the amount of timber that is being generated there versus what3479is being generated on Federal land and putting that in that3480global context, because, yes, we are importing--30 percent of3481our total lumber demand is coming from outside the country, and3482it is coming from places that don't have the environmental laws3483like we do have here. And so, we actually export an3484environmental footprint that we don't have necessarily here in3485this country, and that global context needs to be taken. Sorry3486I went over a little.3487    Ms. Salinas. No. Thank you. Thank you for your response. I3488only gave you 3 minutes to explain something very complex.3489Thank you.3490    The Chairman. We can loosen up here a little bit at the3491end, so that is all right. Let me come back to you, Dr.3492Monohan, on, we were talking about the personnel and ability to3493get out the tools and use them a little bit more. Is there any3494more you wish to finish on that thought before we go to the3495next thought?3496    Dr. Monohan. I think I said the most important things. I3497just think that we do need those folks that are familiar with3498the districts and are designing the treatments that need to be3499done in those areas to continue to do the work that they are3500doing on the--on the Forest Service side, if you will.3501    The Chairman. Well, I guess it is more specific on newer3502tools and newer ideas that--and authorities, exclusive, et3503cetera. Are they--hasn't been to--seems it hasn't been the3504participation or desire to use those tools as strongly as3505some--there is a lot of frustration out there, so.3506    Dr. Monohan. Yes, that is correct.3507    The Chairman. Yes.3508    Dr. Monohan. It is definitely people using what they3509already know or what they were trained to use, and those older3510ways of doing work are, in general, less efficient than using3511their Tribal partners through the Service First authority.3512    The Chairman. What do we need to take it to the next level?3513Do you see pent-up demand or roadblocks towards having more3514Tribal and local participation as more towns have been doing3515and trying to partner with others on?3516    Dr. Monohan. I think that is the opportunity we are looking3517at squarely in the face and trying to figure out how to do3518that. Using Service First for harvesting timber won't3519necessarily be the right tool. We will need to use the Good3520Neighbor Authority and thank you for this Committee's work on3521that.3522    The Chairman. Yes.3523    Dr. Monohan. It is very exciting. Again, we have a couple3524of folks that are interested in having that conversation with3525us at different forests.3526    The Chairman. Are you seeing any impediments to do that3527right now from the government side, or is it a matter of just3528getting out there and getting after it?3529    Dr. Monohan. It will be interesting to see how it plays3530out. It will take time. The treatment has to be fully figured3531out in order to use a Good Neighbor agreement. That is on the3532Forest Service's shoulders, and they are at capacity.3533    The Chairman. Right.3534    Dr. Monohan. So, the extent to which that gets out to us3535will depend on their ability to get those treatments ready to3536be put into an agreement. That is a time-consuming process.3537    The Chairman. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Dane, let's come back to3538the tree mortality situation a little bit. That mortality seems3539to be running around nearly two percent per year, additional3540trees dying off, and that is not counting fire. Is that just3541insects or age, or other factors?3542    Mr. Dane. That includes fire from the chart that I3543submitted with my testimony today.3544    The Chairman. It does include fire.3545    Mr. Dane. Fire, natural disasters, insect infestation, yes.3546    The Chairman. Yes. I guess when I look at some of our3547Sierra forests here that haven't burned, like one example east3548of Fresno there when we have traveled, there are so many gray3549trees amidst the green ones, and so that has got to be insect3550or drought. So, what representation is that of the overall3551problem?3552    Mr. Dane. It is a big part of it. In Minnesota, we had a355330,000 acre fire this year. We don't have a lot of wildfires in3554Minnesota. It was all spruce budworm kill in the National3555Forest, so infestation and mortality as a result of that3556definitely has an impact. Many years ago, when Colorado was3557impacted by the lodgepole pine beetle infestation, the Forest3558Service, the counties, they got together and said, ``Well, we3559need to address this problem we have here, let's get the3560loggers to come in here and clean this up.'' And then they had3561a little bit more of a conversation and they said, ``Wait a3562minute, where are all the loggers that used to be here in3563Colorado?'' And they said, ``Oh, we ran them off 20 years3564ago.''3565    The Chairman. Yes.3566    Mr. Dane. So, they actually called Minnesota loggers to3567come down to Colorado to explore cleaning up the timber down3568there. So, the infestations are a problem, and if you don't3569have support for a timber industry, you can't just turn the3570light switch on and bring loggers in to clean up those messes.3571    The Chairman. So, you can count on a lot of it being not3572just insects or drought, but on wildfire, too. Tell me a little3573about what is your thinking on the way wildfire is handled. We3574have had some frustration in past years of a monitoring3575approach with Forest Service on at least several California3576fires, and even though there were promises made to jump on them3577as soon as possible, why does it seem there is so much3578frustration with monitoring, or my deal is I always like to say3579I would like to get the fire out before it has a name or a tee3580shirt vendor selling it with the name. So, how do we--what is3581your--what is your picture--why do you picture that with the--3582how the veracity of a getting at the fire and how hard it is3583fought on Federal land?3584    Mr. Dane. When my son was young, he fell down and got3585injured and hurt his back, and they were--he actually lost3586feeling from his waist down for a period of time. And we3587brought him into the doctor, and the doctor said, ``Well, we3588are going to practice skillful neglect.'' I said, ``What does3589that that mean?'' He said, ``We are not going to do anything.3590We will just watch and see what happens.'' I think that3591describes the firefighting response for the past few decades of3592skillful neglect of monitoring. However, this new3593Administration, this new fire chief, U.S. Forest Service, USDA3594is taking a much more aggressive approach to firefighting. Now,3595it can be argued that that aggressive approach might contribute3596to the buildup of density and fuels and stuff, but you got one3597choice or the other, and I think that we can deal with the3598fuels in a different way than strictly fire.3599    The Chairman. Fire is a great tool if used properly. Of3600course we had an example in New Mexico a few years ago. I wish3601our colleague could have been here to ask about that, but I3602think over 300,000 acres from a prescribed fire that was done3603incorrectly timing-wise, weather-wise, what have you.3604    Is hesitancy for using more of good fire grow out of that,3605or are we utilizing prescribed fire the way we should be?3606    Mr. Dane. I don't think we are utilizing it to the degree3607that we could be utilizing it. It is very tricky. I have been3608on wildfires myself and everything else like that, so I know3609one time a fire got away. They do get away, I mean, and it was3610interesting. The after-action report that came out on that, the3611Forest Service said we had an over-achievement of our3612prescribed fire plan.3613    The Chairman. Hmm. Yes, treated acres. Ms. Barnes, would3614you like to touch upon that from the Utah perspective?3615    Ms. Barnes. Yes, I would. Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman.3616I think prescribed fire is something we try to use in Utah and3617use it the right way. This year, we were in a full suppression3618mode on all fires because of the drought in Utah and because of3619the excessive fuels. We had two really good winters that had an3620excessive grass crop with flashy fuels and hot temperatures,3621but I do think that we have to be careful when we are doing3622prescribed fire. It is easy to turn a community off to3623prescribed fire if it is not done in the right way. It is a3624useful tool on the landscape that can be done wisely and3625correctly. Right now in Utah, managing our forests is something3626that we have looked at doing cross-boundary-wise and using all3627kinds of different methods to do that, but I think it is an3628important way to use prescribed fire on the landscape. Also, we3629have a lot of beetle kill in Utah. Trying to figure out what to3630do with those trees, get in, and reduce those fuels on that3631landscape is something that is very important to us that we are3632trying to work through. Those present a catastrophic wildfire3633hazard, and so reducing that is very important.3634    The Chairman. Thank you. I have blown through my timeline3635that is loosening up here. I will recognize Ms. Salinas for a3636while.3637    Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Chairman LaMalfa. This has been a3638great conversation. So, Ms. Barnes, in your testimony, you3639touched on the importance of the Reforestation, Nurseries, and3640Genetics Resources program, which supports tree planting to3641help rehabilitate forestlands after severe fire events and3642other natural disasters. Can you share some more specifics as3643to why additional investment in the reforestation supply chain3644is needed?3645    Ms. Barnes. Yes. So, this RNGR program is something that3646has been really important, bringing partners in for native3647plant seed, and talking about reforestation work, also for3648seedling production and focusing on adequate supplies of3649seedlings. Unfortunately, in Utah, more than a few years ago,3650probably within the last 10 years, we lost our nursery in Utah,3651so we rely on other states now for that seedling production or3652private nurseries in that area for that, or a seed warehouse3653where we do seeding but don't have any of the seedlings. So,3654ultimately, this is very important for forest resilience,3655landscape reclamation, and also just for the rehabilitation3656after extreme fire events, and it is something that really3657needs to be focused on.3658    Ms. Salinas. Thank you, and I appreciate that, given that I3659do have a big nursery industry in Oregon, so I do hope Oregon3660is a state that you look to, but would love to work with you on3661that program.3662    Ms. Barnes. Yes, that would be great.3663    Ms. Salinas. Okay, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.3664    The Chairman. Thank you. I wanted to go over this roadless3665issue a little bit here because it has been made controversial.3666And so, Ms. Barnes, what have you seen in Utah and the other3667areas you have expertise on with--previous roads, we have a lot3668that has happened in California, but roads that already existed3669being removed. I know of people saying, ``Well, they are paid,3670contracted to remove roads.'' And so, when we talk about3671roadless areas, what are the facts on areas that did used to3672have roads and were actually able to be logged, managed,3673utilized, et cetera, and then made roadless because of neglect,3674became too expensive is sometimes the excuse to maintain, or3675just, flat, the priorities changed and they didn't want roads3676on them anymore. Do you have any insight on that inventory of3677roads going down versus some of the areas being talked about3678for possible new roads going in?3679    Ms. Barnes. Yes. I don't have those exact numbers. I would3680be happy to provide those with you as far as Utah goes on the3681inventory of the number of roads. The Roadless Rule in Utah----3682    The Chairman. What does the trend feel like to you in Utah3683then?3684    Ms. Barnes. There are quite a few areas that have been3685closed off due to the Roadless Rule that prevents us from3686getting in and doing work in that area.3687    The Chairman. But, you used to have roads or----3688    Ms. Barnes. Correct, yes.3689    The Chairman. Yes. So, they have been taken out.3690    Ms. Barnes. Yes. So, with regard to that, Utah would3691support being able to get into areas to do fuel mitigation3692work. The one thing that we can't control is where that fire3693starts, and that is the unfortunate place for us. The one thing3694we can try to control is the fuels, like I was talking about3695earlier. So, being able to navigate through those areas and3696remove those hazardous fuels is something that we would benefit3697from, and also being able to reduce the risk of catastrophic3698wildfire.3699    The Chairman. What do you think of this contention that3700installing roads means more fire where the roads are versus how3701fires are caused, because what I notice in my area is that you3702will have hundreds--many hundreds of lightning strikes causing3703fire of one size or the other versus roadways that do have3704people going up and down them. Like, the Carr Fire in Redding3705was caused by a flat tire on somebody towing a trailer and3706ground the tire down until you made sparks and it got in the3707weeds. Even then, the response could have probably put it out,3708but that is a different story. So, what about this idea that3709roaded areas are somehow a greater fire danger than natural3710causes, such as lightning, et cetera?3711    Ms. Barnes. Yes, I think there is truth to that. I mean, in3712Utah we have a number of human-caused wildfires.3713    The Chairman. Sure.3714    Ms. Barnes. One thing we have done in Utah is we have3715started what we call the Fire Sense Program, and that is3716changing human behaviors of how humans start wildfires. We have3717been really successful at reducing human-caused wildfires in3718Utah. This is an educational campaign. We have been able to3719reduce human-caused wildfires. They were up in the upwards of372080 percent. We are now down into the 50 to 60 percent, so that3721is almost a 60 percent reduction in some years for human-caused3722wildfires. Unfortunately, this year, we have seen some large3723fires on our landscape in Utah that have been caused by humans.3724We also get a lot of dry lightning in Utah, and that also3725causes fires. But I think focusing on what your number one3726cause of those starts are and starting campaigns like we have3727for Fire Sense that really focuses on that human behavior3728change is really, really important. I would encourage other3729states to look to Utah as we have had a lot of success in that3730area. The one thing that we can control, and I will go back to3731that, is just the fuels on the landscape by doing proactive3732work, and that is something that we are trying to get better at3733doing.3734    The Chairman. Certainly. We have worked legislatively to3735try to have more clearance around roads, and especially power3736lines, too, we are not talking every Forest Service road, per3737se, of having a wide gap, but certainly along our highways, our3738freeways, the bigger roads, we need to have a wider buffer3739between them and the forested area. And, Mr. Dane, would you3740touch on that a little bit, too, please with the roadless3741conversation?3742    Mr. Dane. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the3743opportunity. I was getting a little anxious there. I wanted to3744try chime in there. The Roadless Rule was an end-run to block3745access, and particularly for logging and mining. That is my3746opinion, okay? However, it was an artificial restriction.3747Before the Roadless Rule, for 100 years, forest management was3748working just fine. So, according to the American Forest3749Resource Council, nearly half of all roadless acres are located3750in areas rated as high or very high wildfire risk. Since the3751Roadless Rule was enacted, more than 8 million acres of3752roadless forests have burned, highlighting the consequences of3753limiting access and management.3754    The Chairman. Yes. And so, the Roadless Rule was merely put3755in by the Forest Service as a guidance or as a rule. It wasn't3756made by a change of law, correct?3757    Mr. Dane. Yes, it was a rule. In fact, if you look back at3758the history of it, there were quite a few comments opposing it3759from within the Forest Service.3760    The Chairman. Within the Forest Service. Okay. So, I guess3761the winds change on that a little bit, don't they? Do you have3762anything more? You got shorted last time. Okay. All right.3763Well, I could go all day, but I don't think everybody wants to3764do that. We are pretty fired up about this issue.3765    So, I will close a little bit on the personnel, which is3766indeed a difficult one, with Forest Service, that we know that3767they have over 11,000 firefighters on hand, which, actually, is3768above their stated goal for 2025. So, we have--did have--indeed3769have employees leave the agency, and some do hold red cards and3770those were able to be recalled, and a handful--300 of them3771are--came back that actually ever had fire experience. So, the3772numbers we are talking about on the firefighting side is--we3773are not out of bounds, so, and, indeed, we will come back to3774the thought that staffing is a challenge. We had a firing--3775excuse me--a hiring freeze that was initiated over a year ago3776under the previous regime as well, you can go back and forth on3777that, but I think we will continue to work to make sure that we3778have the best trained, best equipped as best we can, and we3779will get through this because we want great results.3780    And the partnerships like Dr. Monohan was working on, and3781those are pretty great, and many others around the country, so3782we want to expand upon that with more success in the farm bill.3783We still have to address the skinny portion in the farm bill3784where policy changes and updates will be done here soon, and3785so, hopefully, we can get that done, right? So, I think we are3786in a pretty good spot for today's hearing. I look forward to3787having more here soon. We have been trying to drink from a fire3788hose so far this year, so I would like to have more of this3789activity right, Ms. Salinas, and address it because it is a big3790thing.3791    Ms. Salinas. Yes.3792    The Chairman. It is an ongoing issue in the midst of this3793fire season here. Thankfully, it hasn't been worse, but I won't3794say that to people's six-digit fires in their district too3795much. So, anyway let me get to the legalities here real3796quickly, and we will----3797    Ms. Salinas. Mr. Chairman?3798    The Chairman. Did you have a closing thought?3799    Ms. Salinas. Just quickly, yes.3800    The Chairman. Okay. Let me recognize Ms. Salinas for a3801closing statement.3802    Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again3803to our witnesses for being here today. Like I said, the3804conversation was very robust, and I think we had a lot of3805takeaways. And I am really concerned, actually, about our3806forest health and the capacity to address it at the Federal3807level, and I don't think we are making the right investments.3808We weren't at a place of full capacity when I got to Congress3809in 2023, and the situation has only gotten worse. And from the3810witnesses today, I think we all do need to work together to3811figure this out, to make sure that we have market access and a3812fair level playing field for the wonderful product that we do3813have here in the United States. And I think we have to figure3814out how we restore balance, but we do need the help of the3815Federal Government, and the workforce that it provides, and the3816right training as well, and that was a big takeaway for me3817today.3818    So, I just want to thank, again, our witnesses. I am eager3819to work across the aisle with my colleagues and to figure out3820how we move something that meets the moment and meets the3821demand that we are seeing. So, thank you, and I yield back.3822    The Chairman. Thank you. All right. About to wrap up here,3823too. So, I guess just one final thought on the roadless areas3824is that just because it might be declared open to 58 million3825acres additionally, it doesn't mean all 58 million are going to3826have that work done on them. It is going to be pretty strategic3827in where, if it is access to timber or if it is an issue of the3828best strategy for the infrastructure for fighting fire.3829Sometimes the things get a little hysterical on that, but3830certainly you are not going to see all 58 million acres3831immediately affected by roads. I have had some conservationists3832or outdoors folks expressing some opinions with me on that, and3833it is when you are talking about some of our trails for--3834Pacific Crest Trail, actually, is closed in a portion right3835now. And that is--you are not going to necessarily preserve all3836of it by being forced to stay out of it.3837    So, I think what we are just after here really is the3838ability to manage the land and have it be healthy, fire safe,3839and, of course, the economic value that we used to have for our3840communities that the timber and seeds will bring. Instead, we3841have to go hat in hand each year and work on this battle for3842Secure Rural Schools, which I hope we can get done in this CR3843round here because we are way over time on that, and it is kind3844of shameful. So, with that, thank you, panelists. Thank you for3845your time, your travel, and for everybody taking part, our3846staff here both sides of the aisle, fellow colleagues.3847    So, under Rules of the Committee, the record of today's3848hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive3849additional material or supplementary written responses from any3850of the witnesses to any question posed by any of the Members3851today.3852    So, this hearing of the Subcommittee on Forestry and3853Horticulture is adjourned.3854    [Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]38553856                                  [all]