Forest Service Chief Randy Schultz testifies before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee regarding the contentious FY2027 budget, which proposes eliminating $31 million in state and tribal forestry grants while consolidating wildland fire management under the Department of the Interior. Addressing severe snowpack deficits and a $3 billion maintenance backlog, Schultz defends hiring 9,700 firefighters and preserving research facilities despite plans to relocate headquarters to Salt Lake City and cut non-fire staff by 40%. Senators Merkley and Baldwin challenge the administration's strategy, warning that dismantling cooperative agreements weakens stewardship during critical drought conditions. Ultimately, the hearing highlights a stark conflict between federal consolidation efforts and local needs for forest preservation and water security. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
Source
Time
Text
Reorganizing the Forest Service00:15:09
The latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington, D.C. to across the country.
Coming up this morning, Politico's Grace Yarrow will talk about efforts in Congress to reauthorize the five-year farm bill and economic challenges facing America's farmers.
And then teachers Kevin Jackson and Ryan Warenka will take questions from students across the country in preparation for the Advanced Placement U.S. Government and Politics exam.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
Join the conversation live at 7 Eastern this morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
Today, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivers the commencement address to the graduating class of Notre Dame Denimura University.
Watch live at 2 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, and online at c-SPAN.org.
Up next, U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz on wildfire readiness and preparedness, hiring firefighters, and President Trump's 2027 budget request.
He testified before a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.
Okay, let's get into it.
Good morning.
The subcommittee will come to order.
It is good to be able to welcome the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service here this morning to speak to the Forest Service fiscal year 2027 budget.
I want to thank you for your leadership, Chief.
I really appreciated the conversation that we had yesterday.
A lot on the table, and there is more to raise here today.
I anticipate good participation from the committee here this morning.
I want to start by crediting you for many of the good things that are happening back home in Alaska right now.
A year ago, I told you I was impressed by your understanding and your just genuine awareness of Alaska's issues.
And I think that you've been using your legislative and your administrative authority to help address them.
You've entered into a shared stewardship agreement with the state of Alaska.
You're working on lifting the roadless rule, which in my view should never have been applied to Alaska, but you're doing that on a nationwide basis now.
You've started the process of revising the Tongass National Forest Plan for the first time in decades.
You've issued a draft decision for the South Rovilla Project to enable the harvesting of more timber from the Tongass.
And all the while that you're doing this, your folks are processing the recreational permits that we're seeking to be able to welcome our many tourists as they seek to enjoy our multi-use forests.
As you know, I've not always been pleased or satisfied with the Forest Service management decisions in Alaska.
And while I have some real concerns about agency staffing, I think you're restoring balance to the agency mission, and I appreciate that.
I think you recognize the need for timber harvesting, energy development, and mining.
And you are reasonably allowing those multiple-use activities on our forest lands, even as we're working to protect subsistence and to, again, welcome and encourage tourists back to Alaska.
Our first cruise ship of the season, I think, landed a couple days ago.
So the folks are coming.
And I will tell you, when they come up that inside passage, they're going through the Tongass National Forest and they're seeing these emerald emerald landscapes around them.
And the recognition that we've actually harvested in these areas for most is like, well, where?
How?
Well, this is a renewable resource.
And when managed correctly and properly, you can enjoy the abundance of what grows on the land while also enjoying the natural beauty that continues.
There's a lot to be positive about right now, but as we meet, I also have just a sense of dread and looming.
We're looking at the maps that you just shared with Senator Merkley and I as we look to the upcoming summer season and what it's going to mean for wildfire and drought.
The pictures that you're showing about Alaska allow me to be breathing a little bit easier, but I know from my colleague here he's taken deep gulps and the reality is it is in so many, many different parts across our country right now.
There are severe threats because our forests, many of our forests, are already unhealthy.
Too many are overgrown, infested by insects and invasive species, increasingly susceptible to once extreme conditions that are now becoming the norm.
Most forecasts are projecting that this will be a bad year for both fire and drought, and if that comes to be, it's going to impact everything.
It's going to impact the firefighters, the forests, the forest resources, the communities that surround them, the communities on the front lines, and it's going to impact our federal budget.
We passed the so-called fire fix in 2018.
We're now entering the final years of its budgetary adjustment in FY27.
My view, we need to provide every resource needed to fight fires as part of a broader policy that addresses every facet of the problem.
And that means robust forest management through a full spectrum of activities that help reduce, prevent, and ultimately lower the cost of wildland fire.
So as we brace for fire season, the Forest Service is simultaneously tackling some very big internal initiatives, starting with a proposal for a new wildland fire service.
As I told Secretary Bergam last week, there's merit to the proposal.
I've seen in Alaska, a state where we don't have Forest Service firefighting, I've seen how the Alaska model can work elsewhere.
And so I know it can be done.
I understand why it would make sense for the Department of Interior, but my question still remains: does it make the same sense for the Forest Service and the lands that you manage?
You're also proposing a significant reorganization of the Forest Service.
I agree that many improvements can be made to the agency's structure and organization, but details matter.
So I'll have some questions about how what is being proposed would actually work in practice.
And as much as you have proposed a reorganization, you're also proposing a consolidation of Forest Service assets and facilities.
And again, in some cases, that absolutely makes sense.
I think we do have some sprawl that can be realigned.
But as we do that, you move cautiously.
It's not knee-jerk.
It's not without a good deal of consultation there.
This isn't BRAC, this isn't Doge.
Being lean and mean And moving to an interior-like state office model doesn't necessarily mean being more effective, especially if the cuts being made degrade the agency's capabilities and research mission.
But I have shared with you, I think it makes sense when you are the Forest Service and most of your lands are managed in the West.
It makes sense to head further to the West.
And you're talking about your headquarters there to Salt Lake.
I could suggest that you could move it all the way to the West and bring it up to Alaska, but I'm going to back off that idea.
Perhaps the easiest thing to say right now is that the Forest Service has an incredibly ambitious agenda right now.
In my view, there's no need to shy away from the conversations that will follow.
Not much that you have proposed is a hard no for me, but I'm not exactly an immediate yes on everything either.
So to get to get to that good place, I think I'm going to be seeking firm assurances for what I think we need in Alaska, like a sustainable timber harvest in our largest national forest, a commitment to maintain important agency facilities and personnel, continued co-management agreements with our tribes, and a robust public process for those affected by agency decisions.
And that's just to name a few.
We're a long way from ensuring our mutual goal of ensuring the health, productivity, and resilience of our forests.
But I do look forward to working with you, Chief Schultz, and along with my ranking member, Senator Merkley here, and all the members on the panel to put together a good budget, a budget that will be right for all across the country and move us in the right direction.
So again, I thank you for your leadership and your willingness to be here and to work with the committee.
And with that, I turn to Ranking Member Merkley.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you, Chief Schultz.
And thank you for providing a map that scares the begebras out of me.
The map is about the snow water equivalent that fell this year.
And I was showing you how decade by decade the snowfall in the Cascades has steadily dropped over the last 90 years.
But this is something way beyond that.
We're talking, and this is a watershed map, so we're looking at 0% of the 30-year median amount in Mall year, 0%, meaning they basically got no snowfall, or 1% in Owahie, or 0% in the John Day watershed, or 1% in the Lake County watershed, or 3% in the Klamath watershed.
So, yes, it's extremely, extremely worrisome as we think about the role of snowfall that provides both the significant amount of water through our trout and salmon streams and provides a lot of water into the summer for irrigation for our agriculture.
So, in both senses, we're looking at a very rough year.
You and I share a commitment to the health of our forests and the rural and urban communities across this country that depend on them for their livelihoods and their well-being.
And those values transcend governmental boundaries.
Those values are important, whether it's land managed by tribes or the federal government or the state government or by private landowners.
We share the goals of reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire.
We share the value of restoring forest resiliency and the value of ensuring the American people have access to well-managed public lands.
In Oregon, we treasure our public lands as places to camp and to hunt and to fish and to hike and collect mushrooms and just to be in the wilderness to restore our souls.
But when I look at the budget before us, I don't think it reflects those values.
It pulls back on state and tribal partnerships.
It backs away from research and science.
It doesn't use all the tools available for better management.
It projects a 40% reduction in non-fire workforce.
The very people in Forest Service Green who are the key to making those shared values, shared goals, a reality.
And as you and I have talked about, the department's outline for reorganization has generated a significant stir.
You've been working to assure stakeholders that the plan won't shatter research activities and won't reduce the workforce and will take a step to take a step, won't take a step towards transferring federal lands or selling them off.
But when I look at the budget, those concerns remain significant.
And now that we can look at both the reorganization plan and the fiscal 27-2027 budget together, the optics are hard to ignore.
The reorganization is shrinking agency capacity just as the budget shrinks agency capacity.
This isn't the bright vision for the future that I know many of us strive for.
These changes appear to weaken an agency that has been a global benchmark for integrating forest research and stewardship for over a century.
The budget requests suggest a dimmer vision.
It zeroes out federal forest research.
And anyone with all the experience you've had knows how important that research is, how many different types of forests, how many different ecosystems, how many different timber opportunities there are, and how important research is to sustain all of our goals in the forest.
The budget eliminates state and tribal grants to support private landowners and volunteer fire departments who are often the first responders to wildfires.
And it ends funding for collaborative landscape scale restoration projects.
And those landscape scale restoration projects, the collaboratives, have been an extraordinarily successful approach.
As compared to traditional timber sales which end up in court, the collaboratives don't end up in court.
We are able to bring together folks with start with very different views from the environmental side and the timber side.
They work out a prescription, they form relationships, they sit in rooms together and really wrestle and bring, find the compromises that enable them to forge long-standing partnerships that both result in a lot of thinning and prescribed burns and mowing that reduces the risk of wildfire, but also supplies a lot of sawlogs to our mills.
And if we don't get sawlogs to our mills, the mills shut down, and then we don't have the ability to process and effectively do the forest management.
Budget Cuts and Expertise Loss00:02:08
So the mills and the forest management are so carefully intertwined.
The budget cuts recreation management by a third.
And it projects a reduction of more than 7,000 Forest Service staff positions.
And let's put up that chart just to take a look.
Even if we include the staff that is moving over to DOI, we still have a reduction from 30,000 to 23,000.
And so that is a whopper of a change in a single year.
And by the way, just as the budget projects 7,000 positions being cut in the same month, 6,500 staff received notices of relocation and reassignment.
So it seems like, and we know that when you shut down one center and open another, often it's a way to kind of indirectly pair the staff because families can't easily move.
And so it seems like the first strategy to try to implement this significant cut of 7,000 has a big impact on losing a lot of expertise that's been so important to the Forest Service.
So in that sense, the budget and the reorganization seem somewhat aligned.
Now, the budget that was submitted for fiscal year 26 did look quite similar.
In a bipartisan fashion, Congress said, no, there's a lot of changes there we don't want to adopt.
And I think that we may well work towards the same reaction from Congress this time.
But still, these presentations in the budget do feed the concerns.
And there's a lot of concern about moving the Forest Service wildfire management into Interior.
The Forest Service has a lot more fire personnel, a lot more acres than does Interior and BLM.
And so it seems like Forest Service should be in the front seat, not in the back seat, or I'm afraid they're actually just getting dumped out of the truck completely.
Wildfire Threats to National Forests00:07:26
So I appreciate that you are undertaking the study that we asked for to look at that merger.
And I understand that the request for proposals will come out shortly and that it might well be September or October until that report is done.
And over the course of that, certainly encourage all consultations with Congress and the public about the elements of that plan and hopefully hearings when the plan comes out because I keep hearing from Forest Service experts that fire management and forest management are inextricably intertwined and should never be separated.
So there's a lot to discuss.
I believe that you and I do share a commitment to our forests and to the communities that rely on them, but resources are essential to fulfilling that commitment.
And I look forward to many, much dialogue over the coming year in common pursuit of that vision.
Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Merkley.
Chief, it's good to welcome you to the committee if you would like to proceed with your statement, and then we will move to questions.
Chairman McKowski, Ranking Member Merkley, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here to testify today.
Established in 1905, the USDA's Forest Service is the nation's foremost federal forestry organization.
We have the privilege of managing 154 national forests, 20 national grasslands, covering 193 million acres in 43 states in Puerto Rico.
The Forest Service works with communities, states, local governments, tribal governments, forest industry, private forest owners, NGOs, and others for managing for multiple uses.
Collectively, we have shared challenges that we've referred to already today in some of these comments across the nation in maintaining this level of productivity.
You all have talked about wildfire risk, threats to watersheds, infrastructure strain, and the need to support rural economies that depend on healthy forests and grasslands.
This has also been a priority for the Secretary and me.
We share many of the same values that have been alluded to already.
None of these challenges stop at jurisdictional boundaries, and none of them can be solved by the federal government acting alone.
They require partnerships, community and tribal members.
They bring local knowledge, experience, and accountability.
The best outcomes happen when we plan and act collectively, especially as the wildfire risk grows and pressure on public lands increases.
My focus over the past year as Chief has been a return to fundamentals, keeping people and communities safe, reducing risk to communities, actively managing forests and grasslands so they remain productive.
And also, we want to increase and improve public access for recreation and other uses in the National Forest System.
Wildfire readiness remains central to our mission.
As of early March, we have hired already about 9,700 firefighters, which is 6% more than we had done last year at this time and 9% more than in 2024.
So we've looked at the same data that you're talking about.
We're actually ahead of where we were two years ago by almost 10%.
Our firefighters are world-renowned for rapid response.
This year, we will continue demonstrating that strength to keep fires small, communities safe, while also increasing the use of risk reduction tools such as prescribed fire and mechanical thinning.
We've already thinned and used prescribed fire in more than 1.7 million acres year to date.
Just so you know, last year was also predicted to be very bad fire season.
We actually had 12 percent more starts, fire starts during the course of the season, but we burned half as many acres.
The Forest Service was very proactive and aggressive in fighting wildfire.
Last year, we were also very safe.
We reduced our OSHA recordable incidents by almost 15 percent from 2024 to 2025.
In much of the western United States, mortality on productive timberlands now exceeds growth, particularly in the national forest system.
This is driven by fires, insects, disease.
In other words, our forests are dying faster than they're growing.
The Forest Service currently harvests on less than 0.5% of the total forested acres every year.
And despite our reserves of forest land, we still rely heavily on Canada to meet our domestic timber demand, which is about 25% of our lumber currently comes from Canada.
Active forest management is not optional.
It's how we restore health to our forests.
It's how we reduce fire risk.
It's how we keep them open for public access and productive.
Expanding timber production, modernizing grazing processes, and accelerating reforestation are all part of restoring forest and grassland health and productivity.
This past year, we planted 285,000 acres, more than we've done in the last 25 years.
Stronger management means stronger local economies, more jobs in the forest and energy sectors, productive working lands that fuel rural prosperity.
Our frontline workforce is critical to expanding the management of our national forest.
This year, I committed to hiring 2,000 seasonal employees for the summer of 26 to ensure that we're able to do just that.
We've made significant progress, offering positions to more than 1,600 candidates, with 520 expected to start over the next week.
75% of those folks are focused on recreation.
Our national forests provide far more than clean water and places to recreate.
They're all working lands that support America's energy security and innovation.
Energy security is national security.
Responsible resource use strengthens our nation's economy and resilience while upholding our multiple-use mission.
The fiscal year 27 budget that the President proposes focuses on Forest Service efforts to actively manage the forest for critical minerals and permitting and energy development.
Additionally, the budget emphasizes efficient and effective fire management by building upon our current best practices to unify the federal suppression response apparatus into the U.S. Wildland Fire Service under the Department of Interior.
The unification of wildland fire under one DOI Bureau will allow the Forest Service to focus on its remaining core mission of delivering critical outputs and services from the National Forest System lands.
The 27 budget firmly supports the President's goals by significantly increasing funding for active management.
The budget also proposes to increase the amount retained by the agency from ranchers and permittees, the grazing fees that are collected to provide for reinvestment in the National Forest System lands.
Our public lands offer some of the best recreational opportunities in the world.
National Forests alone receive more than 160 million visitor users annually.
Maintaining safe and reliable infrastructure for these visits and other management is critical.
And that's why the 27 budget requests reauthorization of the Great American Outdoors Act.
Similar to the 26 budget, the President's 27 request reduces or eliminates some aspects of federal funding from the Forest Service budget to ensure stewardship of American taxpayer dollars and to better balance appropriate roles of the federal and state governments, stemming the reliance on federal government to fund and deliver these services.
In closing, the 27 budget request underscores our commitment to focus on investments and products from the national forest that are critical to supporting rural communities.
We are prioritizing fundamentals of managing our forests for their intended purposes and ensuring maximum value for the American taxpayer.
Thank you for inviting me here today and look forward to your questions.
Chief, thank you for your statement.
We will now turn to a round of questions.
I am going to yield to the chairman of the full committee on appropriations, Senator Collins, for her questions and a possible statement if she wishes.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you both for your leadership of this important subcommittee.
Mr. Schultz, welcome.
Regional Office Impacts in Maine00:14:35
Maine, as you may know, is considered to be the most heavily forested state in the nation.
88% of our land is covered by forests.
Our forest products industry supports approximately 30,000 jobs across all of Maine's 16 counties, with most of those jobs concentrated in northern and western Maine and other rural areas of our state.
That is why the threat posed by the outbreak in upper northern New England and also Canada of the spruce budworm is so critical.
This is a moth that, as I'm sure you're aware, can cause, does cause substantial damage to our forests.
I have seen photographs of the Canadian forests that were not promptly sprayed with a safe pesticide versus the American side, which was, and the difference is night and day.
To combat the spread of the spruce budworm, I secured $14 million in 2024 supplemental appropriations, which private landowners and the state also contributed to this pot of money to do effective spraying.
There is, at my request, another $10 million in the FY26 Interior Appropriations Bill.
It is absolutely crucial that these funds be deployed in a timely manner so that the spraying can occur when it is most effective.
There's a real window for spraying, and the first was coordinated very, very well between the public and private sectors.
So, Chief, could you tell me how you plan to use the FY26 funds to address this ongoing threat?
Madam Chairman, Senator Collins, thank you for the question.
I did have a call recently with Mr. Pingree from Maine, who is one of the contractors that's actually doing the work on the ground.
And he shared with me the results from last year, and the efficacy rates were probably in excess of 90 percent, exactly what you're stating.
I lived in Helena, Montana.
The Helena National Forest had a huge outbreak.
Same thing with spruce budworm.
It defoliates the trees, it reduces growth rates, it can lead to mortality.
It's a significant problem.
So, that the funding you secured last year was very effective.
The funding this year, we are working right now through that process to make those funds available.
I expect talking with Mr. Pengree, I think their intent is to spray in the next several weeks, two to three weeks, is what he indicated to me.
So, we are coming up on that timeframe.
We're working currently with the state to make those funds available to the state.
So, I would expect that those would be available here shortly to the state to pursue that and use those contractors to get that work done.
That is very good news because, as you know, there's a critical window there.
And if the spraying does not occur during that time, you can't get ahead of it.
And unfortunately, we've seen our neighbors to the north not have as an effective a process.
And the devastation is just remarkable, as is the contrast.
So, thank you for your commitment to get that money out.
There's another issue that I'm hearing about a lot, and that is the Forest Service's announcement of a reorganization plan that would move the agency's headquarters from Washington, D.C. to Salt Lake City.
And I've heard from multiple colleagues and from industry about the potential impacts of this reorganization, including the concern about the closure of research and development facilities in multiple states.
I'm unclear what happens to regional offices, which is more important than where the headquarters is.
These laps, however, are extremely important as well.
Two questions for you on this.
First of all, can you clarify what the plan and purpose is for this reorganization?
And second, will there be an impact on the state of Maine?
Thank you, Madam Chairman and Senator Collins.
Maybe I'll take the second one first.
So, we anticipate no impacts to Maine.
There are no facility closures projected in Maine, so no impacts to Maine.
That's the easy one.
In terms of the purpose and scope of what we're proposing, so when we came into, when I came into this job last February, the Forest Service was facing about a $750 million shortfall in the budget.
So, just to put that in perspective, there were a lot of folks hired in 2024.
There was IRA funding, IIJ funding, which was one-time money.
So, there was a significant hole.
So, the Forest Service had actually been planning since 2024 and looking at opportunities for reorganization because of the impending cliff in terms of the lack of funding to sustain all the people that were hired over that period of time.
So, we had to take action.
And the Secretary took lead on this, and she put a memo out in July of 25, which identified, first and foremost, there were four pillars.
One of the pillars was we have to manage within our budgets.
We can't hire staff and have staff that in excess of the money we have.
So, first and foremost, we're going to live within our budgets.
Another big part of that is to move programs to where people are at predominantly.
So, when you think about in the West, about 90 percent of the National Forest System lands are west of the Mississippi.
So, we're trying to move the headquarters to where people are at.
In terms of regional offices, you asked about regional offices.
We currently have nine regional offices.
We used to actually have 10 regional offices.
There was a Region 7 that was consolidated years ago.
So, what we've looked at, and this is not a new concept, there's been discussions of moving and reducing regions since about 2007.
So, there's been a lot of dialogue.
I've talked to prior chiefs about this.
But we recognize what has happened over time is we have created a bureaucratic state within the Forest Service.
We have about 3,500 directives.
That's on top of statutes, that's on top of regulations, that's on top of a manual.
We have a handbook.
So we have created such a bureaucratic state, and many of those directives have actually been promulgated by the regional offices over time.
So what we're trying to do is push decision-making down to the ground so the men and women on the ground give them more responsibility and authority to make decisions and to remove some of middle management and to move people more resources to the forest.
So we're not proposing to change forests or district boundaries.
We're not proposing to consolidate those offices at this period of time.
But it's really about looking at how do we create a structure that is more accountable to people on the ground where the work is being done and give them more authority to make decisions.
The new structure is going to have a state-based approach.
So you might be familiar with other agencies that have taken a state.
So NRCS has state conservationists, the BLM has state directors.
So an approach where we have a single person, in many cases, in the West, in the East, we have more consolidated, but having more accountability for that relationship and that liaison role.
So for instance, in Oregon, in Alaska, we're going to have a state director, and that state director is going to have responsibility for relationships with the state, with the tribes, with local government, counties, with NGO community, with the industry community.
So we think it's a better way to both communicate and liaison with those local entities at the same time driving decision-making to the ground.
That's the overall intent of what we're doing.
When it comes to closing, there's been a lot of questions about RD.
RD is in a very similar role that the agency overall is.
We have a shortfall of funds.
We look at our facilities.
When you look at the number of facilities the Forest Service has across and the number of buildings, we have about a $3 billion deferred maintenance backlog.
I'm going to say it again, $3 billion in deferred maintenance.
We're woefully underfunded to maintain the facilities and structures that we have.
Just between fiscal year 25 and fiscal year 26, our facilities budget was reduced by about $37 million.
So we're trying to be prudent stewards of the taxpayer dollar.
We cannot afford the facilities we have.
So what we're doing is identifying in RD and elsewhere where we have facilities that we might have in some cases one or two staff, some cases three.
How can we consolidate the work?
In some cases, we might move forest employees from a national forest to a research and development facility or vice versa.
But it's really we cannot sustain the footprint that we currently have.
And there's a lot of concern.
Are we reducing research?
No, the intent of the reorganization is to maintain the research, it's to maintain the researchers, but it's for us to take a hard look at the buildings that we have all across the country.
There's an example.
A lot of people brought up Bartlett in New Hampshire.
Question came up about: are we going to close the facility at Bartlett?
Well, we're going to maintain the overall experimental forest, but there are no employees at the Bartlett facility.
Nobody actually works there.
And there's expenditures there we have for utilities and lights.
I think almost a million dollars in annual expenditures, and nobody's physically there.
So there's many instances as we've looked across the landscape, but we have to be prudent managers of the taxpayer dollars.
And a lot of it is consolidation of facilities.
It's being more prudent about how we do this.
So that's a long-winded answer to your question, ma'am.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Senator Collins.
And I appreciate that you spent a little bit of detail on this because I imagine that all of us have questions about what this reorganization is going to, how it's going to impact us in our regions, in our states.
I think we all want to be good stewards and making sure that we are managing well to hear your comment about $3 billion in deferred maintenance ought to get the attention of each of us here.
But being smart in some of these leasing decisions, to me, seems to be worthy of the conversation.
So, thank you for the detail to that.
I'll turn to Senator Merkley.
I'll thank you, Madam Chair and Chief Schultz.
And I'm going to try to get through a lot of topics fast.
But the first is I'm very concerned about the expiration of the fire fix.
For five years, we had a fund that essentially ensured there'd be no fire borrowing.
That is, shutting down everything else the Forest Service does in order to fund fighting fires.
But now we're in a precarious situation.
2025 firefighting was a billion and a half higher than the previous year, and 2025 wasn't a terrible fire year, just a 10% increase over 2025, and we'll run out of the funds this summer to fight fires.
So are you concerned about us running out of funds?
And do you think we need to be talking about a supplemental or about actually passing a fire fix to make sure that you're not in that horrific borrowing from Peter to pay Paul situation and shutting down other things during the fire season?
Madam Chairman, Senator Merkley, I think it's a great point to bring up.
So the firefunding fix, as you've alluded to, was extremely important for the agencies that we didn't have to rob money from the land management side to pay bills.
It's been very effective.
As you mentioned, we spent about $5 billion last year with wildfire suppression, a lot of money spent on retardant.
We had a very active season, and we were very successful in keeping fires small because of that.
The firefunding fix expires at the end of fiscal year 27.
So you do not see it reflected in the president's budget because typically OMB will take that action in the next fiscal year after it's been done.
But I can tell you we are more than willing to work with you if you have questions about that, how to address that.
In terms of whether we will run out of money this year or not, our forecast is that we will not run out of funding this year, but I can tell you I've got our budget folks here.
We're constantly reviewing expenditures and where we have to transfer funds.
I mean, we will keep you up to speed on that as the fire season progresses.
This fire season has already been very active in the southeast, as we know.
Yes, and as the charts you have shared and reviewed, the amount of places where we have drought and the amount of places where we have small snowpack have us very, very worried.
In the fiscal year 26 legislation, we had an advance notification requirement put into statute with something new.
Will you strive to make sure that the Forest Service follows the kind of the spirit of that advance notification on issues regarding staffing and reorganization?
Yes, sir.
I just wanted a yes, thank you.
We've already talked about it.
I'm trying to get through several issues here.
So I am very concerned about the changes in the facilities in Oregon.
And does the Department plan to relocate the Portland research staff?
This is really not talking about the budget.
The budget is devoid of research money, but as you and I have talked about, there's a good chance Congress will decide to keep funding that research.
But even if we keep funding it, do you plan to relocate, which we will, the Portland research staff to somewhere else?
And would that be to Salt Lake City or Fort Collins?
What's the detailed plan on that?
Okay, so with specifics to Oregon, we have research facilities in Corvallis and La Grand, which we are proposing no changes to those facilities.
You mentioned the Portland Regional Office.
We have approximately 150 employees in Portland.
And what we've communicated to them currently is that we are looking for theoretically opportunities for them to be able to commute within their existing distance, which some folks have asked, what does that mean?
Typically within 60 miles of their current facility, that could be on a national forest, in a supervisor's office, it could be on a turn.
I'm just trying to, are you going to move the research?
Are you going to shut down that Portland research?
Implementing New Forest Plans00:16:14
It's the largest research.
No, we're not shutting down research.
No.
What we're looking at is consolidating facilities.
Portland Research Facility.
Are you going to move it or shut it down?
We are not going to shut the research down.
No, the answer is no.
We're not going to shut the research down.
Portland research.
Right, we're not going to shut Portland Research down, no.
Okay, thank you for that assurance.
I appreciate that.
And there's a whole lot of folks paying close attention at this very moment because that is our largest research facility.
And the number of threats we have in our forests, from sudden oak death to pine beetle to new pests, like we're here.
We have a lot of spruce in Oregon.
So we have a lot of concerns.
And the relocation could affect, we have 483 staff in Oregon.
So very, very, we'll be in, I hope to be in close consultation with you about the best way to keep robust research efficiently conducted to the many challenges we face.
The transfer of firefighters to interior.
I know that you're going to conduct this study, so thank you very much for that.
I just want to accentuate that when I look at the fact that there are 11,000 permanent firefighters versus 4,000 interior, more seasonal firefighters in the Forest Department, more red card non-fire employees, more wildland urban interface, more federal firefighting aviation assets, more firefighting logistical support contracts as compared to BLM Interior.
It just boggles my mind that it makes sense to separate the firefighting from forest management that Forest Service is responsible for.
Do you share that concern at all?
So, Madam Chairman, Senator Merkley, I think you bring up a lot of good points, and I think that's why we're conducting this study.
So, you all directed us to do this study, and I expect the RFP to be out probably mid-May timeframe, and I think it's going to be about six months to complete it.
So, those kind of questions that you're asking will address those in that study.
I think your recognition, though, that there is a large portion of the current firefighting program, about 70% is Forest Service.
But the intent of the unification is to create better coordination, better direction in terms of the priorities of fighting wildfires.
But it also would continue to ensure that we manage lands, as you alluded to, and do the preparation work.
So, we have to thin the forest, we have to use prescribed fire, all of those things reduce threats.
So, it's not just about suppression, it continues to be focused on all of the preventative measures that we need to take to ensure the forests are managed actively.
Thank you.
Yes, sir.
Thank you, Senator Merkley.
Chief, I appreciate your response to the ranking member here about the report.
I think it's just prudent to make sure that we've really reviewed and analyzed this and are asking all the right questions.
So, I appreciate the update on where that study is in the process here.
And as I mentioned, with regards to the reorganization, this is important, I think, to all of us who have Forest Service lands in our states.
And so, I am going to ask that you commit to just being very open, very transparent with this committee as we have questions about this proposed reorganization going forward, the impact not only on our states but the broader system, but also being transparent with the Forest Service employees, because that's who I'm hearing from.
People who are uncertain as to am I going to have to move from Anchorage to Juneau or Juneau to Anchorage or perhaps elsewhere.
Last year was kind of rocky.
I think we recognize that when we think about the impact to staffing and good men and women doing a good job, and certainly for our firefighters, doing a hard and a dangerous job.
So just being able to set their minds at ease in terms of what some of this may mean to them and their families is appreciated.
So I'd appreciate your commitment to just that level of communication.
Yeah, Madam Chairman, we are committed to that, yes, ma'am.
And just so you're aware, too, when we announced this, I was in Portland that day when we announced the changes that were forthcoming.
So we are trying to reach out to employees.
We're having regular roundtable discussions.
Employees are being engaged in actually the design of the restructuring as well.
So a lot of the questions people have, we don't have all the answers yet.
We have a general structure as we go forward, but we are engaging our employees in this process.
We're informing them.
We're having roundtable discussions.
We're meeting with them in the field about some of these topics.
So we are definitely having our employees at the front and center of this as we proceed.
Good.
Keep that up.
I appreciate it.
The president signed an executive order over a year ago.
This was regarding the immediate expansion of American timber production, calling for increased timber production on federal lands.
Just a general update for the committee here on how Forest Service has implemented this EO over the last year and then more specifically to Alaska is the impact that it's had on the ground in my state.
You know, Forest Service has had a pretty difficult time moving forward with any level of increased timber production over the years.
And as you speak to that, if you could also walk me through the Forest Service effort in terms of providing for some of the longer-term contracts in the Tongass that we had discussed previously.
Madam Chairman, just to kind of put this in historical context, if you go back to the late 80s, right before the spotted owl was listed, the Forest Service would sell about 12 billion board feet a year.
Today, our target this year is 3.2 billion board feet.
When you look at forest plans, we have 154 national forests.
Those forests have forest plans.
If we just implemented every forest plan and did the work that is prescribed in those forest plans, we would sell approximately 7 billion board feet per year.
The forest plans address wildlife concerns, they address watershed concerns, soil concerns, they talk about desired future conditions, it accounts for recreation.
So my direction to our staff has been implement forest plans.
The President gave us clear direction in the executive order to increase over the next four years what we sell by about 25 percent, which would be about 4 billion board feet.
Again, I'm going to reflect back on forest plans.
If we implement forest plans to their full extent, which is what we should be doing, that would be selling about 7 billion board feet.
Congress has given us additional direction.
So in the reconciliation bill, in law now, it says we are going to increase over our 25 base by 250 million feet a year what we would sell for the next 10 years.
That still puts us just under what is directed in our forest plans.
So we are moving in that direction.
So last year we sold 2.94 billion board feet.
This year our goal was 3.2 billion board feet.
We're moving forward per the direction in the EO and per direction from Congress on how we proceed in that fashion.
Again, this isn't just about timber targets.
Forest management is a tool by which we manage the forest.
It reduces risk for insect and disease.
It reduces wildfire risk.
It provides habitat for wildlife.
It provides recreational opportunities.
It provides public access.
So forest management timber is a tool to do the work.
In terms of specifics in Alaska, so Alaska, if you reflect on the forest plan, which was adopted in 2016, the goal in there was about 45 million feet.
The Forest Service has been hovering between 1 and 3 million feet a year, probably on and off for the last eight years.
So we aren't doing that this year.
We just sold the sale the other day, closed on it last Friday, was 3.5 million feet.
We had sold a prior million feet in Alaska this year.
The goal this year is about 27 million feet.
We're moving toward that 45 million-foot goal that's identified in the forest plan.
We'll be there next year, that's the plan.
And as we mentioned in your opening statement, we are reviewing and updating the Tongass National Forest Plan.
We're going through a process to do that.
So we're going to reevaluate the goals and objectives in the plan and involve the public in that process.
So we are well on our way to following the President's direction, following Congress's direction, and moving forward.
And it's in a sustainable, thoughtful way, working with communities, ensuring that it's within the direction of the forest plans.
And even as we do that, at the end of 10 years, we're going to get close to full implementation.
That's what our goal is: full implementation of the National Forest System plans.
Thank you for that update.
Let's turn to Senator Baldwin, and following her, it would be Senator Houston.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Chief, for your testimony, for being here today and your service.
The President's budget request cuts all the funding for state, private, and tribal forestry programs.
And the volunteer and state fire capacity grants that help support local fire departments in responding to wildfires are eliminated in the president's budget.
These rural volunteer and career firefighters are already stretched pretty thin.
And this budget asks them to continue to risk their lives fighting fires on federal land with no resources to back them up.
Rural communities depend upon these departments not just for wildland fire but for every fire emergency that occurs in their communities.
The budget also proposes transferring funds to build up a consolidated federal wildland firefighting effort.
This appears to be the President's attempt to rebuild what was broken last year when thousands of Forest Service employees were fired, many of them who held wildland firefighting certifications.
So I have two questions on this topic area.
Chief, how do you expect to recruit wildland firefighters to a federal agency when it has already shown its willingness to fire them without warning?
And the second question, and I'd like you to address both of these, under this reorganization, will municipal departments continue to receive federal funding to fight fires on federal lands?
Senator Merkley, Senator Baldwin.
Your first question in terms of the status of what happened last year.
So last year we didn't fire any firefighters.
We didn't fire any employees overall.
There were about 6,500 employees that took DRP, voluntarily left the agency.
So we did not implement a RIF in that process.
What we have done in terms of firefighting this year, like I mentioned in my opening statement, we've already hired 9,700 firefighters, which were ahead of where we were last year by about 5%.
And from 24, we're almost 10% ahead of what we were in terms of firefighters.
So we've actually done a tremendous job of recruiting firefighters this year so that we're ready for the firefighting season.
So we're ahead of that.
Under the reorganization, will municipal departments continue to receive federal funding of any sort to fight fires on federal land?
Right.
So your question about state and private, which would include those dollars there, we would not, under this budget, those funds would not be available.
That would be a requirement of the state to do that.
We have programs in Oregon, Idaho, and Nevada, where we have Rangeland Fire Protection Associations, where we've seen permitees, ranchers step up, and actually form associations where they actually are the initial attack on many of those fires at minimal cost to both the state, the permittees, and the federal government.
So there's other models to look at to assist in managing wildfire situations when we aren't going to necessarily provide those funds in this budget.
But those grants are eliminated, okay.
Yes, ma'am.
I wrote you this week about the closure of the Region 9 office in Milwaukee because it will affect both federal employees and Wisconsin's tribes, including the 11 member tribes of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission.
The Region 9 office operates under a formal memorandum of understanding with the Commission and supports almost daily coordination on natural resources management across our national forest lands.
This is a legal commitment rooted in treaty reserved rights and the federal government is bound to uphold.
How will the Forest Service maintain the current level of daily coordination with Gliffwick, the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, and its member tribes given the projected loss or relocation of 250 staff in Wisconsin?
Senator Merkley, Senator Baldwin.
So currently we have 43 employees in that office.
That's currently what the staffing is in the Milwaukee office.
We have a rent of about $833,000 per year.
We are proposing to move this to Madison where we have the existing forest products lab.
We think it's a better location.
There's been discussions over the last 10 years to relocate from Milwaukee to Madison because of the dwindling number of employees there as well as the cost for that facility.
We will continue to uphold all of our tribal commitments and we've actually made a very much of a lot of outreach to tribes working with tribes for co-management discussions.
I personally, when I go out and visit folks in the field, make it a point to visit directly with tribes and we're expanding those opportunities on a daily basis.
So we will definitely maintain those commitments as we go forward.
And we think Madison actually is a better location than Milwaukee.
And like I said, this has been a discussion that's been in place for the last 10 years about relocating that office.
Okay, so it will remain the Region 9 office just.
We're not going to have regions, no, ma'am.
We're going to have a state director's office there is where that's going to be in Milwaukee.
I'd like to get a lot more detail from you on how that restructure is working and how the level of consultation and co-management will continue.
I realize I'm out of time, so I will submit my last questions for the record and appreciate your prompt response.
Thank you.
Yes, ma'am.
Senator Hosted.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
And Mr. Schultz, thank you for coming today.
Interesting discussion.
I represent a state in Ohio that is largely industrial and agricultural.
A lot of our land is committed to agriculture.
So we have the Wayne National Forest, which is a treasure for us because we don't have a lot of public lands for people to recreate and enjoy the outdoors.
And so it's a very important place for us.
We have about 12 counties that it touches, seven of them has a major presence in.
And I understand from the conversations that you were leading today, support the idea that we want to tame the bureaucracy, make sure we're using money more efficiently and effectively, and put more people out where the actual services need to be met rather than necessarily in Washington or other places.
People mostly just care about outcomes.
They care about the outcome of the services that they're provided.
So when you look at the Wayne National Forest and you look at your budget, the people who are looking to make sure that the ranger offices are properly staffed and provide services and everything from the boat rams to the campgrounds and the fishing game resources, all those things that are within the Wayne National Forest.
Is the budget adequate to continue to maintain the service levels that they've come to know?
Protecting Communities During Fire Season00:04:27
Mr. Chairman, Senator Houston, the budget is going to be sufficient to maintain that.
What we're going to see, though, is there's going to be changes in staffing levels that are going to be needed to be done.
As was mentioned in Senator Merkley's opening comments, there are reductions in staff proposed in the budget.
So you would see we would have necessarily fewer staff, but what we are trying to do is also increase our partnerships.
So whether that's working with states, whether it's working with tribes, whether it's working with local entities, we have a lot of partners.
We have 82,000 volunteers on the National Forest System.
So what I would expect is as we would have reductions that are proposed in the President's budget, we would increase our partnerships to include some of that work on the Wayne Forest as well.
Well, then that takes me to my next question.
Your budget eliminates all the discretionary cooperative forest funding, including programs that support state forestry partnerships.
So I know that if you look at the map of the Wayne National Forest in Ohio, there are a lot of state parks, state forests that are adjacent to the Wayne National Forest.
And so with that funding going away, how will it affect those joint partnerships?
Mr. Chairman, Senator Houston, so we have a lot of partnerships where there's no actual exchange of dollars as well.
So we cooperate with the staff.
We have agreements.
We have the Explore Act.
We're actually signed agreements in Arkansas, in Idaho, and we're looking at other states for recreation management where entities from the states are actually doing some of the management for recreation on the national forest.
So dollars may or may not transfer hands, but we would still be partners at the table sharing information, sharing personnel resources to get work done.
I would encourage you to have as many of those conversations as early as you can with the state and volunteer partnerships that you have so that they can be prepared.
And I know that that is important.
I want to give you a chance, though, in the remaining time that I have.
It's been brought up about the drought conditions that exist in many places around the country.
And inevitably, we'll see wildfires this year.
What do you want to convey to the American people about what you're doing to prepare for that?
Mr. Chairman, Senator Houston, I think what I want to convey, first of all, the conditions that have been alluded to, we have very dry conditions.
Whether you're looking at Oregon, you're looking at Northern California, Washington, the Cascades, you could look in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah.
Many states have somewhere between 5 and 20 percent of their average snowpack right now.
So conditions are very dry in many places.
I was in Northern California here just about a month ago, and the spot I was standing on on the Stanislaw National Forest three weeks earlier had three feet of snow and there was no snow on the ground when I was there.
So it is very dry, but what I would tell you all and the American public is that we are prepared for this upcoming fire season.
So as I've mentioned a couple times, we've actually hired more staff to date, year to date, than we've hired over the last two years collectively during this period of time.
So the staffing is in place.
Our teams are trained.
Our aviation contracts are in place.
Our agreements with states are in agreement.
Our cost share agreements.
So our partners are ready to fight fire.
We're ready to fight fire.
Our coordination with our other federal agencies, we're prepared for that.
The Secretary of Agriculture sent out her leader's intent just the other day for the fire season.
Mine is coming out today.
You will see very aggressive initial attack on these fires.
You will see us be very thoughtful about any kind of firefighting activities that are occurring in terms of the tactics that we use, the need for retardant.
We are going to be aggressive.
We're going to protect communities as we go forward.
We're going to have a full suppression strategy for every single fire that we fight.
And you're going to see a lot of local communication and coordination on those fires to ensure that people know what's happening and that we will continue to brief folks.
We actually have an opportunity for senators starting in May.
We're going to be having a meeting with senators every other week.
The Secretary will host it to keep you all informed if you so choose, or your staff to attend that meeting.
So we were going to be doing a lot of work to continue to communicate as the fire season progresses.
And we will let you know about the resource availability that we have, the priorities around the country.
But we are prepared for this coming season.
Great.
Thank you, Mr. Schultz.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, sir.
Senator Van Holland.
Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Merkley.
Chief Schultz, it's good to see you again.
Evaluating Staff Locations Nationwide00:09:23
I think we talked last year about Maryland forests and the Chesapeake Bay.
We, of course, have a beautifully geographically diverse country, and the challenges we face with forests are different from the West Coast to the East Coast and Maryland.
In Maryland, 40% of our state is forested.
Three-quarters of that forest land is privately owned.
So, for us, being able to support private forest owners in being good stewards of their lands and making sure that owning forest lands remains profitable for them is key to sustaining the state's forestry economy, the health of our forests, and the protection of the Bay watershed.
And the Forest Research Service work has been essential to Maryland and surrounding states, creating innovative wood products that generate new jobs, addressing invasive diseases, diseases like the emerald ash borer and the beech leaf disease that have been decimated eastern forests, and importantly, guiding decisions to help protect the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
And last year we discussed this, and you agreed that we should have a strong partnership between the Forest Service and Maryland, especially in these key areas.
So I will say I'm disappointed to see that once again, the budget zeroes out the state and private forestry and the forest and rageland research accounts that fund this important work in Maryland.
I do hope to work on a bipartisan basis in this committee to reverse that decision.
I'm also very concerned, Chief, about the Forest Service proposal, at least reports of the proposal, to close the Forest Service's Baltimore Urban Field Station.
That station has operated for more than 20 years now with the University of Maryland Baltimore County.
It's allowed the field station to develop very important work related to the Baltimore area community and partnerships, but also important regional and national work, including inventing high-resolution land cover mapping that's been used for urban and community forest management across the country and leading the Forest Service's wildland urban interface program to reduce the impact of forest fires.
It also has done other important work in health and safety, and as I mentioned, very important work to protect the bay.
So last week, the Maryland Congressional Delegation sent you a letter with a series of questions on this important topic.
And let me just ask you straight out: I mean, are you currently planning to close this office?
Mr. Chairman, Senator Van Holland, we are evaluating that building right now, but we are not planning necessarily one way there.
We're just evaluating it.
I appreciate that.
If you could, we sent you the letter Friday, so I understand not a lot of time.
We'd hope to get written answers before the hearing.
But if you could just commit to getting us answers to that letter in the next week, is that fair?
Yes, sir.
It is.
What I will tell you, though, real quick on that, you're right.
That is a program that has been in place, but it has not always been at the same facility.
We actually used to have some folks that were in Annapolis.
So what I'll commit to you is that we're going to continue, no different than my response to Senator Merkley.
We're looking at all of our facilities and we're looking at retaining the research and the researchers and there might be other facilities.
So USGS actually has a facility right across the street from the UMBC facility that we're currently in.
It may be a more cost-effective facility.
The intent is not to reduce the research that we're doing or the people that are doing the research.
It's to evaluate the facilities given this facility cliff that we have in terms of our ability with our current budgets to pay for that.
So the research will remain intact.
It may be at a different location, but that's what we're evaluating.
We will definitely keep you in the loop on that, yes, sir.
No, I appreciate that.
That is reassuring.
So you intend, number one, to keep the research going and two, to keep the people doing that research in place?
Yes, sir.
In place, not maybe in the same physical spot they're in today, but in place and during the research.
It could be across the street at the USGS building.
It could be at another facility.
We're just evaluating it.
Like I said, we're paying about $100.
But we would be talking about at least the broader Baltimore area.
Yes, yes, sir.
Well, thank you.
I have no further questions.
Sir.
It's all yours.
Chief, thanks for being here.
We appreciate you.
Thanks for being out in North Dakota.
I thought the sessions you had out there with our energy industry and our farmers and ranchers was very productive, very helpful, very good.
And so thank you for that.
You know, we've got a lot of Forest Service land in Western North Dakota, as you know, because you've been out there.
But while the Forest Service is the surface acre manager or the surface manager, the mineral acres are managed by BLM.
And that creates challenges because you've got one entity that decides what happens on the surface, another one that decides what happens with the minerals.
And so we really need help in terms of cutting through the process for approving energy production on forest service lands.
What can you tell me about staffing levels and your ability to expedite that process?
Mr. Chairman, Senator Hoven, appreciate the question.
You're right.
I have been out to North Dakota and South Dakota this year recently, and I have been in North Dakota previously, and I've spent a lot of time studying the oil and gas regulations.
Yeah, you didn't have too much of that for South Dakota.
Not as much there, but just in my history, I've worked on a lot of oil and gas issues.
So I understand the sense of urgency to get work done.
So specific on questions about positions, we currently have about 13 staff positions.
We have some senior folks that are looking at retirement.
We have opportunities.
There are tools like ACES where we can hire retirees back part-time to help us some of that work.
So we have some very key staff.
And you're right, the staff there are very well trained and it's super important.
But in discussing this, when I was out there physically on the ground, I'm talking to them since then.
We typically process the permits for the surface that you're talking about, the surface use agreements, within about 30 days.
So the BLM, primarily the Montana State Office, is doing the permitting for the subsurface, and we're authorizing the surface use.
And typically it's about 30 days, but the staff is very committed to this work.
Yeah, because the state, we, you know, on private lands, state lands, we get it done in about 30 days.
And as you know, we produce 1.1 million barrels of oil a day, and that's pretty important for the country.
So we appreciate it.
So the McKenzie district, sir, generates about $225 million a year off of that district alone.
It's the number one producing district in the forest system that we have, of any district.
Yeah, I know you get it.
And I appreciate it.
Yes, sir.
The other thing that you guys are doing a particularly good job on, and I want to commend you and also Deputy Chief Chris French, and that's on noxious weeds.
Big problem.
You've been out there and seen it, and they really are noxious.
I mean, it's obnoxious.
Right?
I mean, you've waded through those sucks.
Just wade through them once, and you know what we're talking about.
We have funding in place 24th through 26th, about $4.5 million, so a little over 1.3 to 1.4 a year.
We're in the last year of that.
Will you commit to working with us to extend it?
It's vitally important.
And you all have been good on this.
Yes, sir.
So we currently, I think this year we're expected to about $1.36 million that will be distributed, I think, here in the month of May in that same vein that we've done in the past two years.
Yes, sir.
Yeah, I know what happened for a while.
It was like pulling teeth getting help out of you guys.
And then, I don't know, you and Deputy Chief French have been great on it.
So thank you.
Keep it up.
Appreciate it very much.
Prairie dogs.
You know, we have a lot of prairie dogs out there, and we have them in the park, but then we also have them on Forest Service lands.
And we understand that, you know, there's a place for them and all that, but they just keep expanding their communities, if you will.
And we've got to have a way to control it.
And you know, if you've seen some of those fields where they go in, I mean, it looks like the moon.
There are no grass and a bunch of holes.
And livestock going across there is, it's dangerous, and of course there's no forage.
So we need your help on managing the prairie dog population and would ask for your not only your help and support on that, but any good ideas you have to help us manage those buffer zones better.
So Madam Chairman, Senator Hovind, we've taken this to heart.
There was a recent meeting with some of the grazing associations in North Dakota specific to this and they came up with 10 recommendations, including how to better address prairie dog management.
Visitor Centers and Cultural Interpretation00:02:23
We currently have about a we have a quarter mile buffer from private lands where there's more active management of those, but they've come up with other recommendations that we're reviewing right now that we can make, we think, some positive changes to help Permatees better manage the population.
Please do because the buffer now is not adequate and I believe you know that.
And again, appreciate you being out there on the ground and your ability to talk about these things from knowing what you're talking about.
Thank you so much.
Yes, sir.
Thank you, Senator Hovind.
We'll begin our second round.
I don't know that we're expecting additional colleagues, but we have a vote that has just started, so you're not going to be on the hot seat for too much longer, Chief.
Just a couple that I hope will be relatively straightforward with you this morning.
Men and Hall Glacier Visitors Center, of course, is part of the Tongass there.
We had real concerns last year at the beginning of the tourist season.
This is the most heavily visited place there in Juneau for our nearly 700,000 visitors who come through.
I'm told, and I just need you to reconfirm this, that Forest Service staffing is at full staffing as we enter the tourism season this year.
Yes, ma'am, that is correct.
We're at full staffing seven days a week.
We're full compliment.
And just I want to have a shout out to the Klink at Haida tribal folks.
They really stepped up last year and they're providing not only visitor services but also cultural interpretations.
They made it very clear that they're interested in the geology but also wanting to share their culture about the people.
And there's been a great partnership with those folks out there and they've been a huge asset to the Forest Service in order to provide the service to the public that we want to provide.
But we are at a full complement of staffing.
Right.
And well, thank you.
Thank you for providing those positive comments about the relationship with Central Council of Klink at Haida.
The co-management has worked.
We certainly saw that in play last year.
They really stepped in and as you note, they provide an important cultural perspective to visitors out there at the center.
Volunteer Trail Maintenance Programs00:15:36
They're having challenges, as you know, with just dealing with the volume of traffic permits at Mandenahal are only enforced for motor coach visitors.
Anybody else who comes by, whether it's your private car, Uber, or Citibus, visit the area.
They don't have to have a permit.
But the motor coaches are selling out of their allotted permits.
And so this is pushing the visitors to take the city bus to take Uber out there.
And there's no real way to enforce the permits.
So operators are, we're hearing from operators about it, whether they're losing money, Forest Service is losing money, locals are frustrated because there's no room on the bus for themselves because the tourists have figured out that they can pay two bucks and get out there and not pay a permit.
So I think your folks on the ground are trying to help address how we can reconcile this permitting system for the motor coach visitors.
So probably not to your level, Chief, but know that this becomes an issue that has caused angst within the community and we need your teams to work with us on it.
And Madam Chairman, when I was out there last summer, I did hear about this.
So it's both the construction and the parking lot, how we can ensure that folks are paying and opportunities for expansion of that permit and the buses.
So you're right.
So there are folks going up there.
There's crowding because of that.
And I know the tourism industry is concerned that the buses are paying the fees and yet individuals are not.
So it's something we're aware of and we're working on solutions for that with the community.
Another issue that is no stranger to you, we have talked about it.
I've raised it in hearings previously, is how we finally provide for our Alaska Native Vietnam veterans who were denied opportunity to their ANSA entitlements because of their military service there in Vietnam.
We've opened the door for their allotment opportunities through the Dingell Act, through making BLM lands available.
But the fact of the matter is, we have some 500 veterans who live in Southeast who call the Tongass home.
I just need you to commit to working with my office to address how we might provide for equity for these Vietnam-era veterans, hoping to identify National Forest System lands in the state that could be made available for allotment selection.
So maybe we need to do some kind of a formal report.
We're working on legislation, but again, I just put that out in front of you.
Yes, Madam Chairman, we'll definitely work with you and your staff on that.
Thank you.
You've mentioned the Tongass Plan revision.
There's been a lot of changes in the Tonga since the last management plan had a full revision some 25 years ago.
Again, 25 years ago, we didn't have 1.67 million passengers coming into the state by way of cruise ship.
So the plan is beginning its process.
So I just need to hear you say publicly that you commit to thoughtfully and comprehensively taking into account all the views of all the local people, including the tribes, as you're working towards that new plan.
Yes, Madam Chairman, we will definitely do that.
We actually had a public meeting this week on that, getting feedback.
So we will continue with those public outreach and consultation with the tribes as we proceed, yes, ma'am.
Well, it's appreciated.
As one who was born and raised in the Tongass, believe me, I know that every acre of that amazing place is special to somebody for some purposes, and so full engagement in this plan is going to be important.
And as we talk about the resources being the trees, we also have some pretty exceptional resources.
There's an average annual commercial harvest of 47 million wild salmon, more than all other national forests combined.
People don't think about fish and salmon, but fish and salmon, as my colleague here from Oregon knows, certainly come in tandem.
Just need to know that the final plan account will account for habitat restoration, including bringing stream crossings up to federal standards so that our wild salmon can thrive and be healthy.
Yes, Madam Chairman, we'll definitely be evaluating fisheries and commitments to bridges and culverts and passages, you bet.
And some of the research I learned about out there on the Tongass is that estimates are that the work that is done from the National Forest, both natural and supported, we support production of about 90 million salmon a year from the National Forest System.
Yeah, a lot of fish.
I just want to just make one comment about staffing.
Others have, as Senator Merkley has, on the fire side.
But as we're working to build out whether it's the revised plan, whether it's what you need to do under the President's executive order to be able to address these timber volumes that we've made commitments to.
All of this, all of this planning requires people.
It requires engagement, the consultation.
But I worry as I look at the budget that it takes more people than perhaps we have.
I need to know that you all are looking at how you execute all aspects of the mission.
And as you're moving and reorganizing and creating efficiencies within offices, which I appreciate from a fiscal perspective, we want to make sure that we have enough people to do the task that we have tasked you to do.
Because if you need more to do the jobs that we have asked you to do, we need you to tell us.
We need you to hire them.
We need you to make sure that you've got the folks that you need.
So, Madam Chairman, just a couple things to point out.
So, one of the intended goals of the restructuring, the reorganization really is to move resources from mid-level management back to the field.
So we over time expect to actually have more people in the field on the forest in the districts as we shift away from a regional model and a heavier focus on the Washington model.
So we do expect more resources over time to trickle out to the field-based focus.
The other piece is we've had a hiring freeze in place.
And for the Forest Service, it's been in effect since 2024 because I mentioned the shortfall we had in funding of about $750 million.
So as we move forward with discussions and negotiations with the union, as we inform you all, the intent though is that at some point we will begin making permanent moves within the agency.
We expect over the next year to move people around to the tune of about 2,000 employees that we can fill permanent positions internally.
And we also expect that externally at some point this year we would expect to be able to open up for some external hiring as well.
So we see all of those as positive movement forward as we proceed because we've gotten our fiscal house in order.
We will not have a shortfall in our budget and we'll proceed in a thoughtful way that is within our means and in a way that we also ensure that we have the right resources on the right forest and districts as we look at the whole country.
Thank you, Chief.
Senator Merkley.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
And I wanted to turn to the Claverty Forest Landscape Restoration.
And in the FY26, we provided $31 million for CFLR projects.
Can you assure me that those funds will be distributed during fiscal year 26?
Madam Chairman, Senator Merkley, yes.
For fiscal year 26, they will be distributed, yes, sir.
Thank you.
And can you assure me they'll be distributed without kind of blue-red partisan influence?
Madam Chairman, Senator Merkley, yes.
We are colorblind to what we do in terms of how we distribute the funds, yes, sir.
Thank you.
That's the way it should be here in the United States.
We have five of these collaboratives in Oregon among several dozen that do receive funds for their projects, the Deschutes, the Northern Blues, the Southern Blues, the Lakeview, and the Rogue.
And the beautiful thing about the CFLR projects is they're worked out between stakeholders that come from across the spectrum.
And so people sit in a room that traditionally hadn't, work out a plan they can all agree on.
Projects stay out of the courts, and we produce a whole lot of thinning and forest management for fire resilience, but also for saw logs for the local mills.
So it's just a win-win.
And I know your background in Idaho, you're probably familiar with those projects in Idaho.
Senator Risch and Senator Crapo are my co-sponsors for reauthorization.
I hope we can all work together to make sure this program continues.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
And then I wanted to address recreation and trails projects or concerns about those projects not going forward in the way we would hope.
We have seen in a report done by the Forest Service that the workforce vacancies, the higher hiring freezes, the lost skills are weakening the Forest Service's ability to maintain trails effectively.
And I was thinking when I read this, and again, this is the Forest Service's report, not any outside consultant or anything of that nature.
Thinking about when Mary and I were hiking on the Pacific Crest Trail and came to a section more than a year after, I think it was two years after the 2020 Labor Day fires in Oregon, and basic trail restoration had not been done on such an important trail like the Pacific Crest Trail.
And if work wasn't being done there, how many other places were trails not being done?
So the FY27 budget proposes drastic cuts to trail maintenance.
How will one maintain, how will the Forest Service maintain 165,000 miles of trail with only a third of the current funding, with only half of the current staff, and lots of trails deeply damaged by wildfires?
Madam Chairman, Senator Merkley, you bring up a really sentient point.
What I would say is, first of all, recreation is one of the most important things that we do in terms of managing for that.
You'll see most people that understand and know the National Forest System, they know it through recreation opportunities, whether it's the Pacific Crest Trail, what's the Appalachian Trail.
There are multiple trails that people can work on.
What I'll tell you is that there's a lot of models out there for managing trails that rely heavily on partners.
And I've got friends in Wyoming, I've got friends up and down the East Coast in Georgia, South Carolina that actually manage segments of trails.
So for instance, the Appalachian Trail Coalition, they will have member groups that will identify segments of trail that if there's blowdown, if there's issues that need to be addressed, they go out there first and foremost to manage the trail system.
I just want to interrupt you there because, yes, absolutely, there are a ton of volunteers, but those volunteers normally go out with a Forest Service staffer to make sure that they're addressing the right portion doing it in the right fashion.
And we've been hearing from volunteers in Oregon that they haven't been going out on trail projects because the Forest Service has stopped posting them and stopped doing them compared to anything they've seen before.
So I'll certainly follow up on this.
You're absolutely right.
Lots of volunteers.
I know folks, this is their major recreation activity is actually going out and restoring trails.
But they still need direction and leadership from the Forest Service itself.
Madam Chairman, Senator Merkley, you bring up a good point.
One of the things we are looking at is the process and the requirements that we have to go out and do work on the National Forest System like that for clearing trails.
We're trying to reduce some of that red tape that currently exists that can sometimes be an impediment.
So we're looking at that.
The thing I want to do is make a plug.
So June 6th is National Trails Day.
So you're going to see intent from me to all of the districts that we have to set up an event this coming year for National Trails Day to take folks out and do work on the trail system.
I will be personally working on creating new trails on a forest as well.
So we're looking at getting people out, promoting this, but to your point, recreation is key.
Partnerships are even more key, and we'll continue to reduce red tape to ensure we can get the work done.
And thank you.
Thank you.
I look forward to working with you on that.
And then I wanted to ask you, and I'll wrap this up here.
There's so many other issues because of the complexity of the work that your department does.
But I wanted to ask specifically about the International Program Trade Compliance Office associated with the Lacey Act, trying to make sure that there is not illegal forestry going on, devastating internationally, cooperating with other nations.
We all certainly rely on forests around the world in a variety of ways.
We have a stake in that.
My understanding is the FY26 money hasn't been dispersed yet.
Can you confirm that those funds will be fully obligated as required by law?
Let me just check.
Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairman and Senator Merkley, yes, those funds will be dispersed in 26.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for your appearance today.
Thank you for the work you're doing.
You have a hell of a lot of people who love the Forest Service.
I just hope that we maintain it as kind of the world's best standard for forest research and forest management.
Yes, sir.
With that, we will wrap this hearing, Chief.
I appreciate your responses to members' questions today.
Concluding the Hearing Record00:01:20
We're going to hold the hearing record open for questions for the record for one week until May 7th.
But again, appreciate your leadership.
And with that, the committee stands adjourned.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal, a live forum inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington, D.C. to across the country.
Coming up this morning, Politico's Grace Yarrow will talk about efforts in Congress to reauthorize the five-year farm bill and economic challenges facing America's farmers.
And then teachers Kevin Jackson and Ryan Warenka will take questions from students across the country in preparation for the Advanced Placement U.S. Government and Politics Exam.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal joined the conversation live at 7 Eastern this morning on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-SPAN.org.
Now to a discussion on the NATO alliance's strategy and geopolitical threats from Russia and China with Norwegian Army Chief Major General Lars Lervik.
He also talked about the impact of the Russia-Ukraine war and European defense spending.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies is the host of this