▶ 0:12:17It's an honor to welcome the 21st chief of the us forest service, tom schultz. Chief schultz, you bring a wealth of experience to your role as chief of the us forest service, including a number of years as idaho, director of lands as idahoans. We have both seen firsthand how catastrophic wildfires can devastate our landscapes, communities, people and the habitats of the animals that thrive in our forests.
▶ 0:12:38We have also seen what preventative measures and sound management practices dramatically decrease the cost of a fire season, both in terms of taxpayer dollars and lives and property lost. As we navigate these complex, complex issues. We must also remain firmly committed to fiscal discipline. The american people expect this government to live within its means just as they do. That means making responsible, often difficult choices, distinguishing and prioritizing what is most important.
▶ 0:13:07One area where this committee has shown strong bipartisan leadership is in supporting our federal wildland firefighters. These men and women are the backbone of our wildfire response, often risking their lives under extreme and dangerous conditions. The fiscal year 2027 president's budget shifts the approach on wildland fire management and transfers. The forest service's wildland fire management appropriations and activities to the department of interior. As we all know, wildfire isn't just a policy issue.
▶ 0:13:37It's personal, and this subcommittee is dedicated to ensuring that we provide the proper resources needed to ensure the safety of our communities and public lands, from fire and fuel management to active forest restoration, recreation and infrastructure. The demands on our public lands are increasing. Chief schultz, your leadership comes at a critical time. I look forward to hearing how we can work together to ensure our forests remain healthy, resilient and accessible for generations to come. Thank you for joining us today, and thank you.
▶ 0:14:06And thank you to all of those who participated in this important conversation. I look forward to a productive discussion. Now, I'd like to turn over to my ranking member, pingree, for any opening statements that she might make. >> thank you, Mr. chair, and thank you for having this hearing. I'm very pleased that we're here, and I appreciate the chance we had to talk before the hearing.
▶ 0:14:25But unfortunately, what I see in the forest service budget request greatly concerns me from the elimination of state and private forestry programs in most of our forest and rangeland research, to the proposed move of the wildland fire management to the department of interior. It seems that political goals and arbitrary budget. Top arbitrary top line funding cuts have driven the creation of this budget, not the needs of our forests.
▶ 0:14:51I'm also very concerned that despite this budget request being very late, it does not include any details related to the proposed reorganization. Congress cannot fully evaluate the proposals to reorganize the forest service in fiscal year 2027 without receiving detailed information on the budget. The organization and staffing changes under consideration.
▶ 0:15:13The law is clear if the usda wants to reorganize the forest service in this fiscal year, it is required to submit additional details to this committee so that we may consider whether or not to approve the request. I'm also concerned about the effect of any further loss of expertise and what it could have on protecting and preserving our forests. Last year, the forest service lost thousands of employees to the deferred resignation program.
▶ 0:15:39In maine, we know the value of our forests from supporting our economy to improving our environment through the production of climate friendly wood products. We also know the importance of research, technical knowledge and programmatic support that the U.S. forest service provides. The forest service is an essential partner in both maintaining the health of our forests and also in driving forward innovation for new wood products. Biochar is a perfect example of a method that could have dual.
▶ 0:16:06That could have dual benefits from its use in hazardous fuels reduction, while also sequestering carbon. As we discuss each year, wildfire prevention efforts are at the top of all of our minds. The funding we provide to combat wildfire looms large in its potential impact to all of the other essential programs the forest service executes.
▶ 0:16:28As the expiration of the fire fix approaches, we cannot allow a loss of fire funding to result in a return to borrowing and the critical loss of funding for other forest service programs, which maintain the health of our forests and work to prevent those very fires. I thank you for being here today. I hope this hearing is only the start of an open and productive line of communication between the forest service and this committee, as we consider the many issues we will deal with this year. I yield back.
▶ 0:16:57Thank you, Mr. chair. >> thank you. >> with that, chief schulz, I'd like to give you the floor for any opening remarks that you might have. Your, uh, complete statement will be included in the record. Closures. >> chairman simpson, ranking member pingree and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me here to testify today. Established in 1905, usda forest service is the nation's foremost federal forestry organization.
▶ 0:17:26We have the privilege of managing 154 national forests and 20 national grasslands, covering 193 million acres and 43 states and puerto rico. The forest service works with communities, states, local government, tribal governments, forest industries and private forest landowners managing for multiple uses. Recent analysis shows that in fiscal year 24, the forest service programs contributed approximately 406,000 jobs and $48 billion in gdp.
▶ 0:17:55This includes livestock grazing, mineral and energy development, forest products utilization and recreation visitor use. Collectively, we shared, we have shared challenges across the nation when maintaining this level of productivity. So we've 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 been a priority for the secretary. None of these challenges stop a jurisdictional boundaries, and none of them can be solved by the federal government acting alone.
▶ 0:18:25They require partnerships. Community and tribal members bring local knowledge, experience and accountability. The best outcomes happen when we plan and act collectively, especially as wildfire risk grows and pressure on public lands increases. My focus over the past years has been to return to fundamentals, keeping people and communities safe, reducing risk to communities, actively managing forests and grasslands.
▶ 0:18:48The main productive, resilient and also we want to increase and improve public access to recreation and other uses of the national forest system. Wildfire readiness remains central to our mission. As of early march of this year, we have hired 9390 firefighters, which is 5% more than last year at this time and 9% more than we had in 2020. For firefighters are world renowned for their rapid response.
▶ 0:19:11This year, we will continue demonstrating that strength to keep fires small and communities safe, while also increasing use of risk reduction tools such as prescribed fire and mechanical thinning. Just so we know. Last year, when we had our fire season, it was also predicted to be a very bad fire season. We had 12% more starts during the course of the fire season. We burned half as many acres, so the forest service was very proactive and aggressive in fighting wildfire. Last year, we also were very safe in much of the western united states.
▶ 0:19:39Mortality, unproductive timberlands now exceeds growth, particularly in the national forests. This is driven by fires, insects and disease. In other words, our forests are dying faster than they're growing. The forest service is not currently harvest more than about 0.5% of total forested acres every year. And despite our reserves, we still rely heavily on canada to meet our domestic timber demand, which is about 25% of our lumber comes from canada. Active forest management is not optional. It is how we restore health to our forest.
▶ 0:20:09It's how we lower fire risk. It's how we keep them open for access and productive. For example, in the el dorado forest, active management is down roughly 70% over the last 20 years. This is forest in california, and the focus that we had for the last 20 years has been on protecting spotted owl habitat. So we set aside areas these packs. In 2021, we had the caldor fire about 235,000 acres. Half of that fire was down replacement.
▶ 0:20:37We burned up half of the spotted owl habitat on that area that burned. There was an area that had been managed in that area, and that area did not have catastrophic wildfire that burned through it. So in many of the cases that we've pulled back on management for protecting species, in many cases, we now see the consequences of what we've done expanding timber production, modernizing grazing processes and accelerating reforestation are all part of restoring forest and grassland health and productivity. This last year, we planted 285,000 acres more than we've done in the last 25 years.
▶ 0:21:06Stronger management means stronger local economies, more jobs and forest and energy sectors, and productive working lands that fuel rural prosperity. Our frontline workforce is critical to expanding the management of national forest. This year, I committed to hiring 2000 seasonal employees for the summer of 26 to ensure we're able to do that. To date, we have made a lot of progress on this, offering positions to more than 1600 candidates, with 520 expected to start this next week, and the rest will be starting over the next 4 to 8 weeks as they align with mission critical activities.
▶ 0:21:3675% of those are focused on recreation. Our national forests provide far more than clean water and places to recreate their working lands that support america's energy security and innovation. Energy security is national security. Responsible resource use strengthens the nation's economy and resilience while upholding our multiple use mission. The fiscal year 27 president's budget focuses on forest service efforts to actively manage the forest, rangeland and critical minerals permitting, and energy development.
▶ 0:22:04Additionally, the budget emphasizes efficient and effective fire management by building on our current best practices to unify the federal suppression response apparatus into the us wildland fire service under the department of interior. Unification of wildland fire under one doi bureau will allow the forest service to focus on remaining core mission of delivering critical outputs and services from the national forest system lands. The 27 budget request firmly supports the president's goals by significantly increasing funding for active forest management.
▶ 0:22:31The budget proposes to increase the amount retained by the agency from ranchers and permittees from grazing fees to provide direct reinvestment. The national forest system lands, so the grazing fees that we currently bring in, we're going to increase that by about $4 million. That money will be put back on the ground to contribute to the domestic production of critical minerals for a stable supply of energy. We work hard, along with the blm, to manage leasable minerals from the national forest systems. To support this work. The 27 budget request maintains funding for the forest service minerals and geology program.
▶ 0:23:01Our public lands offer some of the best recreational opportunities in the world. The bureau of economic analysis recently reported that outdoor recreation accounts for 2.4% of current gdp. National forest loan received more than 160 million visits from users annually, maintaining safe and reliable infrastructure for these visits and other management uses is critical, and that's why the 27 budget request reauthorization of the great american outdoors act, similar to the 26 president's budget, the 27 request reduces
▶ 0:23:32Or eliminates some aspects of federal funding from the forest service budget to ensure stewardship of the american taxpayer dollars and better balance appropriate roles of federal and state governments, stemming the reliance on federal government to fund or 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 the fundamentals of managing our national forests for their intended purposes and ensuring maximum value to the american taxpayer. Thank you for inviting me to be here today. I look forward to your questions.
▶ 0:24:03>> thank you. Chief. Uh, I'll start off the questions. First of all, as you know, uh, in this, uh, president's budget, they recommended again, combining the wildfire fighting, uh, in the department of interior, uh, as they did last year. Uh, congress didn't go along with that. Uh, mainly because we, I don't know if it's a good idea or bad idea. Uh, but we had a lot of questions that were unanswered.
▶ 0:24:27And so, uh, our final fy 26 interior appropriations bill conference report directed the department of agriculture and the department of interior to contract with an outside group for a comprehensive study on the feasibility of consolidation, consolidating wildland fire management operations within the department of interior as proposed by the president's budget, uh, request for these past two fiscal years and any challenges that might bring. I understand the forest service and doi have begun the process of getting this study completed.
▶ 0:24:57Can you please provide an update on where things are in the process and a timeline for when you expect the study to be completed? >> yeah, thank you, Mr. chairman. So we have recently received input from vendors for from an rfi request for information that we put out. We had about 12 vendors supply that information. So we are currently reviewing that. And that information will be put together in an rfp that we expect to go out sometime in early may. So over the next 2 to 3 weeks, we'll be compiling that as an rfp. And then we expect that to go out for probably at least 30 days.
▶ 0:25:26Um, the study we think will take up to six months to complete. So sometime this fall, we expect that study to be completed. Um, and then that will be available to everyone. >> okay. Um, one of the challenges we have obviously is if we're going to do a study to find out what the challenges are, what the advantages are and so forth of doing that. And it's not done till fall, which I understand why that is the case. In my view.
▶ 0:25:50Anyway, it'd be kind of stupid to, to, uh, combine the forest services in our, the wildfire fighting in our bill without having the study completed. Otherwise, why do the damn study so darn study? Excuse me? I'm not supposed to swear, but but, uh, so anyway, we'll, uh, I look forward to having some of our questions answered and stuff, because as I've told people, this might be the best idea since sliced bread.
▶ 0:26:20I don't know, but I just need a whole bunch of questions answered. And that's what we're in the process of doing. So. >> so for me, I just respond briefly. Um, so there has been a lot of work done. So the executive order did direct doi and forest service to work together to consolidate some functions already, which we've been doing that. So whether it's training, how we card those things. Um, the other thing is we're learning as doi is implementing their own structure right now. So there's been communication doi sent out guidance just this week on how they're going to implement that.
▶ 0:26:47So I think the intent of this study is to inform congress, inform the administration on this process. But we think there's a lot of progress we can make even short of the study being done. So that's that's the intent we're taking. >> I would hope that acquisition would be one of those things, how the how the different firefighting agencies acquire things. Yes, sir. I know that's, uh, I've been a conference in las vegas where. >> contracting a big part of that. Yes, sir. >> yeah. Okay.
▶ 0:27:09Uh, one of the big things you've announced is the, is the reorganization of the forest service, uh, moving headquarters from dc to salt lake city. Uh, one of the main goals, as I understand it, is reorganization is around the transition to a more state based structure, shifting authority closer to the field by organizing leadership around state level accountability. Tell me exactly what we're doing, what our goals are, uh, that we hope to achieve by doing this.
▶ 0:27:39>> so back in july of 2025, the secretary put out some direction on reorganization, a high level. And one of the key pillars was to make sure that we have a structurally sound budget. So the forest service in 2024 had about a $750 million shortfall in our budget. So this is something that we had to do to correct things. So this even predated this administration coming into office. So we had to take action. So first and foremost, that's a driving principle. We've got to make sure that we live within our means. So we know that we had too many people.
▶ 0:28:08We had we had a surge of employees that we hired with ira funding and funding, which was termed out that money was not long term funding. So we had a fiscal imbalance. So we had to take action, which we did. We have been working on this plan for the last year. Um, and we have had input from agency employees as we've done this. So this is not something that was done in a vacuum. This was done with input from inside the forest service.
▶ 0:28:29The goal is not only fiscal realignment of ensuring that we're we're fiscally sound, but as you mentioned, it's also driving decision making down to the most appropriate level. One of my favorite books is the book called the forest ranger, was written in 1960, and it talks about the culture of the forest service in the 1950s. Um, it's a seminal study on culture. And what you'll see is back then there was a lot of, um, responsibility and authority that was given to forest rangers and the people on the ground.
▶ 0:28:55The books basically summarize that the most important person, the forest service, is not the chief, it's not the regional forester, it's not the even the it's not the forest supervisor, it's the man or the woman on the ground doing the work. And what we've seen over time is we have created more and more managerial levels and more bureaucracy. What folks don't realize is the forest service, in addition to having code, in addition to having regulations, in addition to having a manual, we have a handbook. The handbook has about 3600 directives, say again, 3600 directives.
▶ 0:29:25So if you think about how tall that would be, it's probably at least six feet tall. If we were to stack that up and down, I'm five eight on a good day. So that, that, that direction that we have and that policies that have been created have been created in many cases by regional offices. So regional offices historically have not just had an implementation and operational perspective, but a policy making role that has created more hurdles to get work done.
▶ 0:29:49So 2400 directives created by regional offices, in addition to another 1200 directives created by the washington office, on top of all of the other things that we do. So what we're trying to do is cut through the regulation. We're trying to drive decision making down to the men and the women on the ground that are doing the work. That is a big focus of this. And, you know, the secretary has called this common sense, and I would say it is common sense, but that's as we've talked about this, it's hard to legislate common sense sometimes.
▶ 0:30:16And this is our effort to get at common sense, drive decision making down. It's to better work with the people. You talked about the state structure. Um, we think a state based model will work much better. And I'll give you an example. Currently we have a regional forester in the west. She's over alaska, washington, oregon, and california. So think about the extent of that geographic scope. Think about how many relationships she has to manage, not just with the states, but with the tribes, with county commissioners.
▶ 0:30:43So we think a state based approach where there's more direct communication and liaison role, whether that's large affairs, whether it's tribal relations, whether it's state and private programs that will be delivered through the state directors, we think it's a much better, more accountable model that will provide much better service to the public. And again, our role is two things. Forest service does two things. We're stewards of the land we're supposed to be serving the public, and we think this will better serve the people on the ground where they live and work. So those are the big goals that we're trying to achieve.
▶ 0:31:11Fiscal responsibility, drive decision making down, deregulate, and ultimately be better accountable to the public for the work that we do. >> I appreciate that. I can't tell you how many forest service employees I've talked to over the years that. Sorry, that, uh, I talked to him and they say, you know, they went into forest management and the forest service stuff because they want to be in the forest and they find themselves sitting at a desk behind a computer, uh, because of lawsuits, because of everything else.
▶ 0:31:40And they want to be out in the forest. Uh, this looks to me like that's where the decisions would be made. Uh, as you mentioned, the 1960 book. So I, uh, I think it's very interesting what you're proposing to do and I support it. Uh. >> Mr. chairman, to those to the other point there is the other thing is this will ultimately drive more resources to the ground. So as we, as we remove middle layers of management, the intent is not to rip anybody or have a reduction in force.
▶ 0:32:05It's to find other roles and responsibilities, different reporting structures, but it is to ultimately move more resources to forest and districts where the work is being done on a daily basis. >> do you, uh, believe you have the authority to do this reorganization without congress okaying it? >> Mr. chairman, we have consulted with ogc, um and we have been afforded, um, what they perceive to be a direction to do this move forward that the secretary has this authority. >> thank you. Chief. Yes, sir. Miss pingree.
▶ 0:32:36>> thank you, Mr. chair. Um, just just a little bit about what you were just saying. So I have two thoughts. Um, when you talk about living within our means, and I understand having a $750 million shortfall is not a good position for any agency to be in.
▶ 0:32:54Um, as appropriators, we're in charge of thinking about the entire appropriations bill, and we've been presented a bill by this president that has a 40% increase in defense and huge cuts to all of the departments. So one of my concerns is that we're going to respond to needs that are proposed by other agencies or other concerns, and short change.
▶ 0:33:16What we should be defending here, which is the forest service, and making sure that we're providing all the resources needed by our states, by our federal land and by our forests. So I worry a little bit, we're not talking about profit centers in a business. We're talking about advocating for the thing that we're here to do. So I'm deeply concerned about the short changing of resource sources and the cuts across the board. So for me, that's number one.
▶ 0:33:39And second, while I would love to believe that we're going to push more of this down, I'm, I'm a firm believer. And you know, I've never read the book, but the idea that, you know, the people were on the ground should have decision making authority and more power and that we don't always need the bureaucracy and policy manuals and many more layers. We haven't seen this organizational chart.
▶ 0:33:59So I have no way to know that we're not going to lose a lot more employees, just as we did last year with the misguided doge effort, which just allowed probationary workers to go, lost a huge number of people because of the retirement plan that was set forward. So we've lost a lot of expertise in people who were on the ground and knew what they were doing, because this has been so poorly handled by this administration. So I don't believe you have all this authority. I know that's you know, we're not the lawyers here. We're going to fight this out.
▶ 0:34:26Um, and I would really like to see those organizational charts and those things that explain to us how this money is going to be spent and how we make sure we do preserve the people who are best able to do those jobs. So moving on from just my overall frustration with where we are in this process, um, I just want to talk about a couple of other areas to begin with state and private forestry. So I'm lucky enough to represent maine, where the most forested state in the nation proportionately. Um, but we aren't national forests.
▶ 0:34:53We're nothing like the, my colleagues in the west who just deal with completely different situations than I do. But cutting out the state and public, private, state and private forestry programs, um, is hugely detrimental in our state. And that's, um, you know, slated for elimination. So I'm just wondering, do you have any thoughts in mind about how to mitigate the loss of state capacity for this partnership and the shared stewardship, if those are just completely eliminated? I mean, what are we supposed to do? And what do I tell my state forester?
▶ 0:35:24>> first of all, I want to thank you for your comments. Um, you know, your interest in public lands and conservation, those were 100% aligned. We have a lot of concurrence on that. And I can tell you, the people who work for the forest service feel deeply. And like I said, they really do conserve the land. There's their stewards and they want to serve the public. And I've met so many people. I've been all over the country and met those folks, and they care deeply what they do. So they share the passion that you do when it comes to the reorganizations. To kind of touch back on another comment.
▶ 0:35:53Um, yeah, we, as we provide more information, we put a lot on the website so far. We'll continue to update that. So we'll have a top line org chart that we're still working through some of the details, and not every piece of the organization is totally ingrained yet in terms of how we're going to do this, we're building out the lower parts of the organization, and we actually have folks inside the forest service helping inform that how we do that. So there will be more information as we proceed that we will share with you all. Um, so bear with us. Um, and I guarantee we will make mistakes. There's no doubt.
▶ 0:36:22Um, and our goal is to learn from the mistakes that we make, hopefully not repeat them. And if we do fall down, we'll learn something and pick something off the ground and we'll work from that. Um, when it comes to state and private. So we talked about a state based model. So one of the responsibilities of a state director, my primary responsibility is to supervise the forest supervisors in those states, and also to be a liaison with both the states and tribes, county commissioners and cooperators. So that state and private responsibility that you're talking about will reside with that state director, and they will have a minimal staff to do that.
▶ 0:36:51We're still going to have service centers that will provide opportunities. What you see in the budget is a reduction in that program, but we're still going to provide some of those services through that. The expectation, though, if you look at the history of the state and private programs, and as the chairman mentioned, I've worked in state government for 20 plus years, both in idaho and montana. So I'm very familiar with the cooperative forestry programs and how that works. The history of that was initially when those state programs were being started up, the federal government stepped in and provided funding and expertise to help the state stand up. Those programs.
▶ 0:37:19What we've seen over time in many cases, and I again, I've experienced this personally, that states have staffed up many states. And I know that the state of idaho has got about 25 people in the good neighbor program that do work on federal lands. The state of washington has 38 people. State of michigan is probably ahead of everybody in terms of the work they do in the good neighbor program. So what we've seen is states over time have developed their own set of expertise. Many states manage state lands, whether they're forested lands, rangelands, or mineral leasing.
▶ 0:37:47So over time, that that and I would say that the federal government very much had a paternalistic role with states early on, and that was because the states did not have the funding, did not have the expertise. So a lot of these programs, as they came into being, were really to assist states in getting staffed up and started up. And over time, what we've seen is states have built their own expertise and capacity, so much so now that we rely on them for some of the management that we do in the national forest.
▶ 0:38:12So I would say today, there's no longer this difference in terms of who has the experience and the knowledge. Just so happens we've historically had more money. So over time, what we've seen is states have staffed up and they've provided more funding, like the state of utah is considering funding this year for federal lands. We're seeing the state of north dakota's providing federal funding on state funding on federal lands. I've seen the state of idaho do the same thing. Use general fund monies to help manage federal lands.
▶ 0:38:37So over time, we have seen a shift where the states have taken more responsibility, both in terms of funding and staff and expertise to assist in the management of the national forest system. So back to the state and private question. What I would say is that continues to be an evolution, and that's what I think this budget is proposing, is that we will continue to work with states. We will continue to have a liaison role through state directors, but that ultimately we would expect more of the funding for those state and private programs to shift from the federal government to the states themselves.
▶ 0:39:06>> well, honestly, that was just the answer I was hoping you wouldn't give, because I am I'm just deeply worried. And I think all appropriators should be worried about this. You know, we can go to any one of our subcommittees and we hear this administration say, well, we're going to shift that responsibility back to the states might be snap benefits. It might be about what we're going to see at the epa with, um, you know, state and local funding there. I mean, there's going to there's just this constant conversation that we hear from this administration. And I realize you're just, you know, you're in this position here and we're talking about the big picture.
▶ 0:39:35But every time we meet with somebody who says, oh, but the states can take that over, the states can take that over, I guarantee you my state is not prepared to take over all of the things that the federal government is currently doing. We don't have those resources. And as the federal government continues to pile them on, it means that something like the forest service, where we've been depending on these resources, may not be at the top of the list because we have to deal with health and human services or vital food needs. So I'm just deeply worried about these kinds of shifts. And this is one more example of it.
▶ 0:40:03I have more questions, but why don't I wait? Are you going to do a second round so I can let other people. Yeah. Um, thank you for that answer. I obviously have more to say, but I'd be glad to, you know, let my colleagues and thank you, Mr. chair. >> Mr. >> thank you, Mr. chairman, and thank you for your service as a person that's very familiar with reorganizations. Uh, one one of one of the areas of reorganization is actually quality of life.
▶ 0:40:31I think for the, for the members, uh, as many of you may recognize, the dc is a little expensive. Uh, and when you, when you take your personnel and you bring them out west, the schools are better. The cost of living is better. The opportunity to have a house is better. And you're closer to where the actual forests are. I think it does make a difference.
▶ 0:40:55Uh, to understand the difference between superior national forest and lewis and clark national forest and the difference between the yellowstone movie and yellowstone river and why it applies. So moving things out to the west, I think is important because most of the issues are west. It doesn't mean all the issues are west. Uh, but most of the issues are west. So I compliment you on on that from a personal side.
▶ 0:41:19And I know it's difficult and, you know, we would like details on, on, on funding and, and how are you going to do it? And timing, uh, and the structural, I think that's, that's part of our job of oversight. Um, but I'm going to shift a little, um, super nino. It looks like we're going to, it looks like the evidence would say it's going to be a hotter summer, particularly out west.
▶ 0:41:42Um, and hotter summer coupled with a very, very dry and low snowpack, I would imagine is going to be problematic on forest, uh, prevention and forest fires. So what's the service doing right now to prepare for what I think will be a very, very rough, rough season? >> uh, thank you, Mr. ziggy. Just to, just to reiterate some of your points, I pulled some of the data this morning from the snotel sites in the west.
▶ 0:42:12Um, many of you probably are familiar with the data. Some of you may not be, but just to put some of this in perspective. So in montana, western montana, so flathead watershed, 85% of historic levels of snowpack at this point, um, western montana. So you go libby and south, they're about 75% go to the bitterroot at 66. Um, you go south of billings, it's as low as 26%. So what we've seen is in montana is in better shape than many states. So let me jump to utah for instance. So I'm going to show you the map.
▶ 0:42:41It says utah right now in terms of the snotel data as of yesterday. So as you look at where salt lake sits, um, this is the weber ogden or weber ogden um watershed, 15% of average. Um bear lake area is about 33%. Um, as you kind of look at the hole, you went to wasatch range, you're somewhere between 15 and 25%. So montana sitting at 65 to 75%. Great condition.
▶ 0:43:06You look at the idaho map, idaho, not quite as interesting as the birds, but I'm telling you, those are my props. Idaho is sitting about 65% north of the salmon as you go south of the salmon, owyhee county, 2%, um, historic numbers. So you kind of go around the west. To reiterate your point, oregon is sitting this is oregon, the entire state red. So oregon is somewhere between 11% and 30% across the state. So we have have we've had a significant lack of precipitation, primarily snow.
▶ 0:43:34Um, so what that is setting us up for is potentially a very rough fire season. I mentioned in my opening comments that we are, we've hired over 9000 firefighters to date. Um, our goal typically is 11,300. We're, we're 5% ahead of where we were last year, and we're 10% of where we were year over year from 24. So our we are going to be prepared. Um, the other thing that we're doing right now is my intent letters coming out here shortly in the next week or so.
▶ 0:44:00Um, the secretary is looking at her memo as well, but we're going to be providing clarity in terms of expectations and leaders intend for the fire season. You're going to see again, very aggressive initial attack. You're going to see us again. Look at safety as a primary factor in how we fight fires. We did have a fatality last year in idaho. We had a state employee who was killed by a snag. Basically, a tree strike was killed. She was working on a prescribed fire supporting the forest service and as clear forest. So safety is an issue.
▶ 0:44:26We had two employees that were struck by trees that were paralyzed from the waist down, um, an active wildfire operations. So it's something we have to take a look at. So we are going to be safe again, that will be a function, but we're going to be very aggressive on initial attack. Um, you'll see that we have a full suppression strategy for every fire. Um, we're going to be clear. We're going to mostly go direct in a lot of instances, but when it makes sense to attack a fire indirectly, we will to for safety reasons or topography reasons and different things. So we are going to be prepared for fire season.
▶ 0:44:55We're ahead of where we were last year at this time. And our folks are they're ready to go. And all of the reorganization discussion that we're having, just so we're clear, we talk about moving away from a regional model structure that is not going to happen until after the western fire season is completed. So we do not anticipate moving any of the field personnel any fashion until after the fire season. >> and just to follow up, Mr. chairman, if I if I may, one of the principal complaints I have is for the usa jobs.gov website.
▶ 0:45:21Um, it's frustrating for the for the forward deployed their superintendents or district managers because they have a pretty good idea of who, who's hiring and who's available to hire. And a lot of times the district manager will know who has housing. And sometimes it's better to look at local hires rather than go to a usa job site. Is there a discussion to at least give a probation hire?
▶ 0:45:49Uh, give that authority to the district managers, direct supervisors, and they can catch up on on the screening at some point because it looks like we're, we're going to be, uh, hurting for people. I think we're going to have an early, early, early fire season. So there is there a discussion to bypass the usa jobs.gov site in dc and give these guys local hiring authority, at least probationary. >> so Mr. chairman, Mr.
▶ 0:46:14Zink so when I came into office in this role, um, we were, I was told that it took 8 to 9 months to hire a seasonal employee through that website, the usa.gov. Um, we have reduced that. So that was one of the key concerns we had not only going into this fire season, but also for the seasonal hires that we're making, we've reduced that process to six weeks. So we have a much more expedited process. We've we've worked through this year. We identified that we created a team internal to the forest service to really identify where those bottlenecks were.
▶ 0:46:45We removed the bottlenecks. We are making a lot more local hires. I saw that when I was in panguitch. We have folks that want to work locally, but they wouldn't make a cert list at a national level. So we are working to identify local employees that are qualified for jobs. And we've expedited this process literally from eight months to less than eight weeks. And that's why we've hired more folks this year than we did any other year at this point in time. >> thank you. I yield back and thank you for your service again. >> yes, sir. Thank you. >> so much, uh, Mr.
▶ 0:47:12Chairman, and thank you for for being here. Uh, chief, I wanted to talk about the sierra nevada national forest at the headwaters of the sacramento and san joaquin river systems. 60% of california's water supply serves tens of millions of folks. Originates in our sierra headwaters, much of it on forest service land. And in my community, the. The delta really underpins both our municipal water supply and our our ag economy.
▶ 0:47:39So the health of these upstream forests is really existential. Uh, this budget quadruples timber sales while eliminating some of the research programs that monitor watershed health and sediment in those headwaters. We know that logging can increase sedimentation, reduce reservoir capacity, and degrade water quality downstream. That's basic physics.
▶ 0:48:02Tell me a little bit about how you are going to be monitoring sediment and water quality impacts from some of this increased timber activity in the sierra national forest. >> so, Mr. carter, thanks for the question. Just so you realize, I've been to california more than any state I've been to. I've been to I think I've had 4 to 5 trips already to california, northern california and southern california. So I've been on. >> the food's delicious. Come back any time. >> yeah. >> so but I've been meeting with our folks locally. I've met with our researchers. I've looked at the forest conditions.
▶ 0:48:32Um, just so folks have an awareness. California has been heavily impacted by wildfire significantly. So in the last 20 years, the last ten years, the state of california has had 14 million acres burned. There's 20 million acres of national forest in the last five years alone, we burned about 22% of the national forest in california. The mendocino forest, 92% has burned in the last five years. The the amount of fire, the rim fire.
▶ 0:48:55Um, the caldor fire, these fires have been catastrophic, impacting people's lives physically, their lives, their homes, their well-being. I mean, it's been significant. So the work that we're doing, we cannot do enough work in california. I mean, to your point, I mean, the cost of post-fire recovery when these fires burn, it's absolutely. So the caldor fire was 235,000 acres in 2021. I mentioned that burned.
▶ 0:49:21Half of that was stand replacement, burned up half the spotted owl habitat. We're spending on average 7500 to $8000 an acre. Post-fire recovery to cut down the dead snags, to spray herbicides, to to beat back the brush and then plant trees. The cost to suppress the fire was probably over $20,000 an acre. So think about the cost of this. Our plan for reforestation and recovery post caldor fire. We're lucky if we're going to treat 30,000 acres over the next ten years. The impact of these fires is so impactful.
▶ 0:49:50We are converting forest land to grassland at a rate that's much more than we would expect normally. So it's a huge issue. The monitoring question you raised. So in addition to monitor, we have monitoring that we work we have agreements with tribes. We have our own folks that do monitoring. We also have agreements with universities. So we would expect to continue to partner with folks. The monitoring that goes on, like our research folks have done tremendous work out there.
▶ 0:50:16Like when you look at the silviculture we're doing in california, in those in those areas, we went back to 1905, 1910. We pulled the maps. Our folks looked at the density, the stand density index that existed back at those times. This is all research that came out of the pacific southwest asian out there, and that is guiding our work that we do. It's published work. Our scientists are great.
▶ 0:50:36What we would expect over time is that there's going to be a greater reliance on academia for new research that would come down, but we would also expect that the monitoring would be done with existing employees and existing partners. We have a lot of, as you know, ngos that we partner with there. There's a lot of in the tribes have done a tremendous job as well working with us. >> totally. I'll get to the research question in a minute. But what if that monitoring shows increased sediment, degraded water quality? Are you then going to pause some of these timber sales. >> um, Mr. chairman. Mr. Mr.
▶ 0:51:08Harder so, yes, we would we always take a look at things we have, we use best management practices. We look at things. But I can't imagine the the impact from wildfire. It's it's it dwarfs I mean, dwarfs any impact from management and the impacts of management. And you look at the science behind this, which our researchers have done, it's so much more beneficial than having these landscapes just go up in flames. Think again. Think about this. 22% of the national forest in california have burned in the last five years.
▶ 0:51:36I mean, it's like anywhere else in the country. It is so impactful. And the work that we can do with commercial timber management and thinning and fuels work, it's like that caldor fire, we had an area that we had managed within the last five years. The fire went through there. It didn't go up in the crowns. It stayed on the ground. It had beneficial impacts. That was due to the management that occurred. So in most cases, I would argue not not all cases.
▶ 0:51:59In most cases, forest management activities, whether they be reforestation, grazing, thinning, mechanized treatments, prescribed fire, commercial timber sales, all of that helps improve the health of the forest and reduce the risk to communities from catastrophic wildfires. >> chief, we're totally on the same page on prescribed burns and the need for better forest management, especially in california. Totally agreed.
▶ 0:52:19Um, I think I'm I'm glad to hear that you're going to continue to be monitoring, I think some of the impacts on water quality, um, are bringing some of our locals, uh, pretty concerned. So looking forward to continuing to work with you on that. Uh, second, you mentioned some of the great research that has come out of these research stations. Uh, I agree with you. It's been tremendous. This reorg, my understanding is it closes 57 of the forest service's 77 research stations. Is that right? >> so we have about 130 sites.
▶ 0:52:51What we've identified in the research so far is that 20 sites would be retained for sure. There's 57 sites that have been preliminarily identified for closure. And we're still evaluating those sites, to be clear. But I have to I have to mention again the why behind this. So we currently have about $37 million less this year in our budget for facilities than we did just last year. So we were funded at a much lower level. We have a $3 billion deferred maintenance backlog. We have many facilities that have either zero employees, one, 2 or 3 employees.
▶ 0:53:20So what we're looking to do is in this way I'm communicating. This is we're looking to retain research and researchers over facilities and facility managers. >> and isn't it true that there's also a reduction of 800 scientists in this reorg as well? >> no. >> that's no, there is no reduction of any scientist in this reorganization that's proposed. >> got it. But the entire forest and rangeland research budget is getting eliminated. Correct. >> two things.
▶ 0:53:45So we have a reorganization plan that was approved by the secretary that we're rolling out right now that is focused on consolidating offices, reducing our our footprint, retaining research. And those things with this budget is doing. Is this budget again, what you all proposed back to us and give to us look like the president's budget may not, but the president's budget is looking to shift research from where it is today to more of a model that would be done either in the private sector or with universities. >> so your understanding is no scientist jobs lost.
▶ 0:54:14>> just under the current usda reorganization plan that was rolled out two weeks ago. We are not proposing to reduce any scientists. That is correct. >> got it. So the elimination. So the folks that are employed in the forest and rangeland research would get moved to a different budget. >> is that so? >> under this budget, research is reduced to zero. But under the reorg plan the plan in the budget. >> got it. I see. >> so so the reorg doesn't do anything. That's right. But the budget does reduce. That's 800. >> yeah.
▶ 0:54:42>> so we have currently we have about 1100 researchers with research and other people that support research. That's correct. It doesn't remove everything. Some of it gets moved. The fia program actually moves into the national forest system. You'll see that in the budget. So fia is where we do all the plots across the country. So that program has retained the forest. The fire sciences lab is also retained in the budget. The forest products lab is retained in the budget. Those things. So it's not a complete elimination. Some of those things are shifted in the. >> budget, but.
▶ 0:55:09>> it's a in the budget, it is a reduction of 800 as planned, if enacted. >> if the budget were enacted, 800. >> a reduction. >> yes. >> so 800 scientists. >> I don't know what the number is exactly, but r&d is zeroed out in the budget. That's correct. >> okay, okay. >> different than the reorg plan. I just want to clarify that. >> sure, I get it. I get that they come from different people, but, um, that, that still sounds pretty concerning in that scenario, in the budget scenario. And this will be my last question, Mr. chair. Uh, tell me what would happen to those research and prevention functions.
▶ 0:55:39So if you lost that, what would happen? >> right. >> so what that would do is that would shift either, like I mentioned, the private sector to the universities. A lot of our research is currently co-located at universities do work, whether it's in missoula, whether it's in moscow, whether there are a lot of that research we think would then shift. >> but. >> then they'd be able to dramatically increase the amount of research they're doing with no extra funding. I mean, if I were to talk to a researcher, they would say they can't do more with the same amount of funding, right? >> no.
▶ 0:56:06>> what I'm saying is that those researchers most likely would go work in the private sector or work. >> with the. >> where's the money to pay them? >> well, it would you would have to have, you know, the states would step up, like we talked before about some of those programs, whether it would be university or in the private sector. >> thank you. >> yield back. >> chief. Thanks for being here. Uh, notice the only person who's willing to sit with you on this side of the table in solidarity is, is me.
▶ 0:56:31But, uh, thank you for all of the work you've done with our local elected officials. Um, I really appreciate being able to bring, uh, local officials to your office and let them talk to you about the things they've been concerned about for a long time with the forest service. Um, and, and so I want to give you a really easy question. First, can you just talk about your reasons for wanting to move headquarters to salt lake city? I heard something about great schools earlier.
▶ 0:57:03>> uh, Mr. chairman, miss malloy, um, there's a lot of positives about salt lake. First of all, um, one of the key focus areas of the reorg was to move the headquarters to where the people are. And we have about 8 million acres of national forest in utah. Salt lake is a very family friendly community. It has a tremendous airport. As Mr. zink was mentioning earlier, the cost of living is more affordable than many other western states.
▶ 0:57:26Um, so we think between the, uh, just the, the atmosphere, the locale, the accessibility, the airport, um, we think it's a great location. >> thank you. I probably spend as much time in the salt lake airport as most pilots. And I do concur that it is a really nice airport, um, with the, with the agreements that the forest service is signing with states.
▶ 0:57:50Um, I've noticed a lot of optimism in utah about active forest management moving forward. Forest management that has local input. Um, I do have a couple of questions though. So, uh, in february, the forest service announced new terms and conditions for the agreements. And, and it includes things like prior approval from the usda for subawards and completed nepa before funds can be transferred. And I know that those are intended to make sure we're avoiding waste and fraud, and I applaud that goal.
▶ 0:58:19I'm hearing a lot of concern from locals that it will just become a new kind of inefficiency and a new way for the federal government to call all the shots and not allow some of the flexibility of rome was hoping for. We would just address that. >> uh, yes, Mr. chairman, miss malloy, so you're spot on. Um, we are trying to ensure that we have greater accountability and fiscal management. There was an executive order 14 three, two, two specifically that addressed some of these issues. We have received letters from states national association of state foresters.
▶ 0:58:48We just got a letter in today from state of idaho. Um, they have some concerns about those issues. So we are continuing to listen work with stakeholders. Um we do have some opportunities for deviations. We requested. You talked about the the one about the nepa exception. So that's one that is moving forward. But we continue to make sure that we're accountable to the public and the taxpayer, but we're also entertaining that feedback, and we will be continuing to review that and work with ogc as we go forward. >> okay.
▶ 0:59:17I have another similar one, uh, with the grazing mou. Yes. Again, there's a lot more optimism than I've ever seen in utah about working with the forest service. But so far, the focus seems to be on vacant allotments without a lot of attention to the suspended aum. Everyone's hoping that we can get some of these suspended aum back in play at the discretion of foresters who understand the conditions, uh, and so that we can have some flexibility in management, the response to weather conditions like we just talked about this year, um, and maybe flexible on off dates
▶ 0:59:47Depending on what the weather is. Um, is there any plan to make that part of the mou? >> um, Mr. chairman, miss malloy so there are a couple of things there. One so when it comes to vacant allotments, we're taking a hard look at this. Some of those are easy to put back out. Um working with current permits and others in the area. Some need water development, some need fencing and those things. So that's where we actually had talked about an increase in funding for grazing activities.
▶ 1:00:13So we have more funding this next year that we'll have to help assist in putting those back up for lease. When it comes to existing permits and permits, that's something we're going to be taking a look at too. Looking at why were there reductions over time, evaluating those and coming forward with plans to address that. So we do anticipate more work. Um, the secretary has made it very clear you talked about the mou. She's got a grazing plan she's also put out there. So we're definitely we're working with permits.
▶ 1:00:37We're actually conducting, I think in the next two months, 11 roundtables with ranchers and permittees to make sure that we aren't just doing things without their input and feedback. Um, and so we are going to be looking at, you talked about timing, turn on dates, turn off dates, um, flexibility. They're looking at conditions and whether there's increases in items based on conditions. Those are all things that we're evaluating. We're also updating our regulations today. Um, blm has updated their regulations. We're working in concert with blm to update our grazing regulations.
▶ 1:01:05So there's a multitude of things we're doing to and basically prioritize, um, grazing and attention to these issues on a go forward basis. >> okay. The only other thing I have is, you know, with the shared stewardship agreements we have, people are wanting to see those move faster, get more of the projects done, uh, cut through some of the red tape. So if you'll work with us on that, we're, we're very happy. We're excited to have you in salt lake. Uh, welcome to utah. >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you. So last question. >> yes, ma'am.
▶ 1:01:34>> can I have that map you just showed utah? >> you bet. >> yeah. >> it actually. >> yeah. These are actually. >> a political map. All right. >> there you go. >> there's utah. >> thank you. >> yes, ma'am. >> I yield. >> I appreciate that you just declared the governor declared idaho a drought disaster area. All 44 counties. Uh, what, two days ago or something like that. It's going to be ugly here. Miss mccullum.
▶ 1:02:03>> well, from the land of 10,000 lakes for drying out. And I don't have any red. But historically, this is how we're trending. Um, things that used to be moderately drought are now abnormal drought.
▶ 1:02:18And the whole northern tier of the state that isn't rock or isn't on the dakota border where it's more prairie is now um, yellow and tan, which is different in, you know, my adulthood. So we're drying out too. So that leads me to the reorganization plan. You're looking at closing 47% of the research stations. Some people are using numbers.
▶ 1:02:47Some people are using percents, 5% in front of me. The closures include two stations in northern minnesota, grand rapids and ely. Um, these are both by the superior chippewa national forest. So we're kind of wondering what's going to happen with those employees and what percentage of them won't have federal service jobs. Um, if they're asked to relocate out west. I don't doubt for a fact that you folks don't need more help out west.
▶ 1:03:17I don't want to become red. And so part of what, what they have been trying to do in particular is look at and I'm going to say, say it out loud, climate change, we're seeing it. We're watching, um, all our different, uh, you know, from bogs to everything is all changing up their bogs, pine trees. Um, it's, it's all changing. The prairies creeping in.
▶ 1:03:46It's changing up there and, uh, you know, call it what you want, but it's changing. And I've watched it personally change in the last 40 years in the state of minnesota has been trying to help monitor it too. But they can't do it all by themselves, especially on federal lands. Um, so. You know, we can I'm all, I'm all on board with this. Mr.
▶ 1:04:11Harder said I, when I was on the natural resources committee, you know, give the forest service the matches so they can do the prescribed burns. We're way behind on prescribed burns. So you need more money, you need more resources. And I think this committee would would love to see you have them. But there's another thing that, um, I wanted to talk about and it kind of ties into these next two things.
▶ 1:04:38I'm going to be talking about the universities and the private sector and the tribes. Minnesota's had a forest service council, uh, since the 90s. We were one of the first states to do it with public private universities, everybody sitting together. But minnesota's facing, um, really tight resources. In fact, the federal government is refusing to fund a lot of things that it should and had obligations to fund in minnesota because we're being punished, um, for what happened during metro search.
▶ 1:05:08So we're under a lot of pressure. Our state is right now and our tribe's for the forest service money that we give them. It's a drop in the bucket. I have 11 tribes. They don't have any extra money. They work. They work with you. They work with the state to do it.
▶ 1:05:25So I hope when when your folks are kind of looking at these things, we're doing tribal consultation as what we should be doing, and we're talking to the state dnr to say what makes sense in this area to do here, what makes sense for us to do it can't. I'm trying to tell you it can't be a cookie cutter. Just like your drought pages aren't a cookie cutter. And the other thing that is, uh, that just happened, they passed it in the senate.
▶ 1:05:50I can, you know, they, they passed mining in the, in the, in the, the will in the watershed of the boundary waters wilderness area, which is also part of the us forest service system, which also impacts tribal nations. And that water quality and everything is going to have to be monitored and managed. Uh, it's federal leases, it's federal government land.
▶ 1:06:12It shouldn't be up to the tribes, and it shouldn't be up to the state of minnesota to make sure that that water doesn't become polluted in all these mines fail. And when they fail, we will lose 20% of the most pristine water in your forest system.
▶ 1:06:28So the two things I'm going to ask you is a copy side by side of the study that the forest service and this was not under under your work did when we first had the federal government looking at at doing mining leases in the in the, in the wilderness area, um, which was sent back and all redacted.
▶ 1:06:54I have yet and I have requested I have written, I did it as a chair of this committee, a copy and the scientific information that came through in the first service for service report that that study. Because when a second study was done, the forest service recommended not to do that. Now the president can do executive orders. Um, I think we didn't handle it the right way.
▶ 1:07:18If you had three uh, the congress had three months to appeal, um, what the biden administration did with setting aside that land for 20 years. Instead, they took three years and they and they did it, which is a huge change and could impact any one of your states. Now, going back on executive orders, but I would like to see a copy so I can do a side by side of what that original report was. I had requested that original report. I have a security clearance. If I have to go in a skiff to read it.
▶ 1:07:50It's all redacted. That's public information, and I'd like your commitment to work on getting that to this committee so that we can look at it. The second thing I'll mention is forest service international. I'm going to send you a letter. Um, this we appropriate money for forest service international. They do great work and fy 25 and 26. It has not been obligated. And I know that this is something quite often that the administration likes to zero out or not fund at all.
▶ 1:08:19This is something that congress says that should be happening. And so I'd like to know where that money is. If it's a contract, whatever's happening or if omb has is refusing to release it. And I'll close with this. I think that you have the best intentions of what you're trying to do with this reorganization based on the amount of money you have. You are underfunded, underfunded. But, um, I, um, you know, hope is not a strategy to prevent wildfires.
▶ 1:08:49It's not a strategy to prevent polluted waters. And it's not a strategy, um, that I'm going to, I'm going to go back and tell my folks that I hope we get it right. I'm going to be joining, um, miss pingree and trying to see what we can do together, not only to get you more money, but to make sure that this isn't a cookie cutter approach with your strategy and any comments you want to make.
▶ 1:09:12I know it was more of a statement than a question to you, but I've heard you answer the questions and I'm hopeful is is something I'm on the defense committee. We we don't we don't hope for a good outcome. We we plan we plan to have one. Thank you, Mr. chair. >> thank you, Mr. hamadeh. >> thank you, Mr. chair. Hi, chief. >> Mr. hamadeh, how are you? >> good. Thank you. Hey. >> I want to start out with a couple things.
▶ 1:09:40First of all, it's not hard to keep track of sawmills in nevada. We got one. It opened up about five years ago. Cooperative effort between a private, uh, private entity and a tribal entity. Um, and we struggled for the first five years in terms of feed stock and giving them something to do in the sawmill business. I ran into those folks within the last three, four weeks.
▶ 1:10:07And as I travel in district come down highway 50 and you look down there at clear creek and I was shocked. It's like, jesus, they got a lot of logs over there, maybe the most I've ever seen. So when I saw. >> in the log yard. >> yeah, yeah.
▶ 1:10:23And, and I said, hey, you guys have got they sung your praises up one side and down the other in the 15 months or whatever, you've been there because we've been out there before and then come back and talk with, you know, the folks you're supposed to talk with, whatever. So I want to say thank you, uh, for your leadership in terms of making sure that that entirely viable operation should be viable, has plenty of feed stock in, in terms of a log yard.
▶ 1:10:52So those things that you don't think matter much or I know you think they matter. But anyhow, when a when a person like me can drive down highway 50 and go, jesus, there's a lot of logs over there. That's a neat thing. So it helps the tribes, helps the economy, helps on on your forest management plan, I'm sure. So kudos on that. Um, I just have to say, since miss mccullum, miss pingree's here that I love miss pingree's remarks about when you're competing for resources.
▶ 1:11:21It's like we got all this thing in, in, in defense going and and we're dying on the vine. I leaned over to the chairman. I said, I can't wait til betty mccollum gets here. Tell her to give some of that defense money back to whatever. >> I believe it or not, I'm, I'm happy to to work on you to do that. I think we I think we need to be more frugal. >> I'll look forward to being worked on.
▶ 1:11:45But anyhow, um, uh, in the reorganization, I've been told I don't know if it's accurate, but if it isn't, then you'll, you'll so humboldt-toiyabe and everybody loves the forest or whatever, but I, I feel like nevada's the red headed stepchild, you know, we send all our water to utah. We let california take a whole bunch of. We even send some of it to idaho. You know, we're not very good playing with arizona and whatever, but. Well, but you know what? We're not complaining about it. We're used to that. We're like, try to make lemonade out of lemons.
▶ 1:12:14But when I look at the reorganization and I've heard humboldt-toiyabe is going to new mexico and, and if they are, it's I just be curious to know why we were in salt lake and I'm not getting on that. God, we love salt lake, man. Because I fly through the airport. I fly through the airport even more. I gotta fly before I get to your airport. And I'm sick of the whole thing. That's what I'll call, you know. >> my airport though. >> but yeah, I do. I do like yours.
▶ 1:12:39Um, but but anyhow, if it's true that he's heading to new mexico and I heard that vallejo's heading to placerville. Great idea. Um, but I also hear, hey, we want to put our people where the forests are. So, you know, just as it's like, hey, we're the red headed stepchildren, but new mexico, no offense to those folks. I'm sure they're great. Really?
▶ 1:13:02Um, that's a heck of a long ways away for for any h t mission is, you know, you got you got the spring mountains, you got elko, you got western nevada, all that. Can you shed any light on what's going on there with the future where h t is going to land? >> so Mr. chairman, Mr. hamadeh, so I so first of all, you're right. So folks don't realize the h t is the largest national forest in the lower 48.
▶ 1:13:28So the tongass is the largest overall, but it's over 6 million acres in that. So it is a big forest. People don't realize that um, in terms of no, there's trees. So as Mr. hamadeh knows, the capital christmas tree came from the humboldt-toiyabe this last year. They had the christmas tree. >> that was out there. Oh, you. >> know, chief, they were calling it the ozempic christmas. And it's like. >> hey. >> we try to do good with what we have and said, all you people like give us 20in of rain a year. Pansies. Anyhow.
▶ 1:14:01>> so a couple things. One, so I have been to nevada. Um, I did meet with folks on the humboldt-toiyabe. I did meet with for the tahoe forest products. Um, and we are excited to work with them. It's not just a forest service deal. There's also usda has other programs, rural development that is providing loan guarantees to ensure that that facility. So it's a coordinated effort to make sure we get infrastructure out there. In terms of the state office discussion, we try to look at where we would put state offices that could best serve the state.
▶ 1:14:28Um, california is where part of the humboldt-toiyabe actually dips into california. Um, we thought about that. I think the bigger issue was there's, there's 20 million acres of national forest in california. So there's a lot of focus there. Um, we identified that new mexico office as a, maybe a better option than california because things can kind of get lost.
▶ 1:14:48Um, it doesn't mean there still won't be communication and coordination across those lines, but, um, it's something that we're going to continue to evaluate things over time and see where things land and how things go. Like I mentioned, um, as we make decisions, we're going to learn and if we make decisions that don't make sense over time, we'll have to of course. Correct. But I think the short answer is your question is that we were looking at california is a big state.
▶ 1:15:12It's got a lot of national forests, and we're trying to focus that effort and that those relationships there was with some of the nevada piece, we thought new mexico could be a better fit. >> so is it true that vallejo is going to move to placerville? So they're looking at that. >> so we're going to retain the office in vallejo. That's not going to change. It's going to be a training facility. Um but the state office will be in placerville. Yes sir. >> which is great.
▶ 1:15:35I mean, yeehaw, the only other thing I want to make sure and maybe we'll just be able to, to meet and examine that in more detail. But the only other thing that I think is relevant there is, you know, when I listen to miss pettigrew and she says, hey, you know, we've got and and maine maybe can't take on that mission or whatever's going on there. And listen, my dad retired from the nevada division of forestry. So nobody leave the room and say I was smack talking nhdf. Okay.
▶ 1:16:05And he was the fmo a million years ago for the state. But I look at those resources and how they struggle. And you got 80 plus percent. That's owned not by the forest service, but some of it. Or service blm bureau record the big ones. And I sit there and I look at that and it's like, that dog ain't going to hunt in nevada in terms of, well, now it's nfs issue. And so I don't know if there's somebody said, well, blm, you got most of it.
▶ 1:16:31So maybe it's your thing, but I can tell you and people in here. Oh, the sagebrush rebellion, we want that land and all that other sort of stuff. And it's like, well, we want some of it, but it's about 1%. And so if you said, yeah, you can have all the federal land, I can tell you there's no governor in history, regardless of the thing or to come that would say, yeah, give us that. Um, we're the guys who love to have $0.52 an acre built, you know? So I'm just saying I get all that stuff.
▶ 1:17:01But as we are looking at what, what fits best in terms of what's going on out there in the majority of the great basin, I hope that we can say when you get done with whatever you do that it's like we've taken the deep dive.
▶ 1:17:17We know what nevada's resource agencies are and how they're funded and whatever, so that if we're saying we're going to give the state more responsibility, um, we need to make really sure that we've gone down 3 or 4 layers on that. And instead of going, god, I hope nobody takes a look at that. >> so. >> Mr. chairman, Mr. hamadeh, just just to be clear, so when I was talking, the question was specific on state and private programs, um, different than the national forest system program.
▶ 1:17:46So we, there is some reductions in the national forest system budget, but specific to the humboldt-toiyabe and nevada. Um, right now we are not proposing any changes to the forest and the districts within that area. The state office discussion you're talking about would be a, a small staff where we that would support liaison efforts across both states, new mexico and nevada. But in terms of resources available to the forest, we would not anticipate any necessary changes in those resources due to the reorganization or necessarily the budget.
▶ 1:18:16>> who would be a good person on your staff for me to follow up with just to say, hey, can we spend a little bit of time talking about the reorg stuff in the context of h t? >> you bet. So we, I, we have staff here and we can visit with your staff. So budget director is behind me and our government affairs director. >> so thank you sir. And thank you very much for for basically putting up with me during the whole national christmas tree program. You know, uh, I appreciate your involvement and your office's involvement. And I know it goes to idaho next year, and it's like.
▶ 1:18:47>> going from the ozempic tree to a real tree. >> hey. >> pox on you. Everybody's like, oh, it's the national christmas tree. It's like, be careful what you ask for. It's a, it's, it's tremendous pride and a neat thing, but nobody's happier when it's done. Then the person who stayed it came from. >> several years ago, several years ago, we had it from idaho and I loved it. >> well, that's because they didn't let you near it. >> no, it's because they had. >> because they had a real tree. >> yeah, yeah. >> the third. >> available tree's. >> out of. That's right. >> that's right.
▶ 1:19:18>> Mr. >> I didn't plant any. >> you can follow up that. >> Mr. chairman. You set me up for failure, and I'm deeply. Chief, I just want you to know that this is the last attack I will ever have to make on you. You. Sadly, his humor and his, uh, knowledge will no longer be available to us this time next year from nevada. I'll come back to it, I think. Did I mispronounce that Mr. m a d?
▶ 1:19:50>> no, you did better than the guy. >> from california. >> sierra nevada. >> okay, we're going to miss that. Nobody nobody else has questions or make statements. I'm reminded of the old school quote for those who have seen the movie old school during the trivia contest. I'm kind of reminded of that right now. I really don't know what he just said. And we're all dumb dumber for having heard it. May god have mercy on your soul. >> yes. >> okay, chief, thanks for being here. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 1:20:20Chairman. Over the last five years, six district of texas has experienced 3184 wildfires that have burned 17,000 acres. In 2024, texas experienced its largest wildfire in recorded history. The smokehouse creek fire up in the panhandle near my hometown of perryton state legislature, responded this issue with a wildfire reform package last summer to help address wildfire risks, including 260 million to texas a&m forest service to purchase a wildfire response aircraft fleet. I apologize for saying texas a&m forest service.
▶ 1:20:47My legislative aide back here is from texas a&m, and it's included at least a half dozen times. All aggies are very proud of their college. Uh. >> I think the secretary would be happy to. >> hear. >> that. Forest service's primary state agency responsible for forest conservation, wildfire response and incident management in texas, and it relies on funding through the forest service fire capacity program to strengthen the wildfire preparedness and response capability.
▶ 1:21:14Uh, unfortunately, the the fy 27 request zeroes out all state private and tribal forestry programs, including state fire assistance, volunteer fire assistance, forest stewardship, and urban and community forestry, um, state forestry agencies across the nature and the nation, including our own texas a&m forest service, rely on this additional capacity. Uh, and we're eliminating it.
▶ 1:21:39Uh, so I'm not going to put you on the spot right now because you're a straight shooter, but we're losing 5 million, which historically we've gotten every year to, to help do that. If you could find out how we're going to mitigate that, if you have an answer now, it's fine. I'm not going to play stump the chump and insist on an answer if you don't have one yet. But we need that money. 5 million is kind of a rounding error, uh, on on the whole budget. And it sure would help if we could get it. >> uh, so, Mr. chairman. Mr.
▶ 1:22:06So one of the key things in this budget is that it moves the forest service fire program and the fuels program to. Department of interior. So that funding specific. I think you're referring to some of the state, um, grants that is actually not in the budget, um, as it's proposed today. So there's sfa, vfa funding for state and volunteer fire department. So that is not in there. Um, and that's something that we've had discussions over the last year was included in the 26 budget. You all put that in there.
▶ 1:22:32Um, I think again, like my prior response is there's, there's generally a shift, um, towards states taking more of those responsibilities over time. Um, but obviously you all are, the appropriators will determine what you want to do. >> I love your straight shoot. I mean, golly, you should run a heck of a lot more than just what you're running. I like those answers. Um, what opportunities do you see for partnership between the dod and forest service to expand america's aerial firefighting fleet?
▶ 1:23:01You know, we've just retired a number of kc ten s, which is wonderful to watch you guys fly those things around and put out fires. Is there any chance for a partnership? >> so, Mr. chairman, Mr. l.z. Yes, we do. So we actually do work with dod on any part of our aviation program. Some of the states also use the air guard helicopter resource and so forth. So we do have ongoing communication with dod for aviation assets.
▶ 1:23:28Most of our assets are contracted out in the private sector. Um, but there are programs we work directly with dod for resources on fire. So I think there's opportunities for that dialog as we go forward. >> thank you very much. Yield back. Thank you, Mr. chairman. >> thank you. Uh, you might all think that we don't get along with hamadeh, but we all actually do. Uh, we love hearing his questions. If we can understand him. Nobody understands.
▶ 1:23:53And I always sit and look at the guy testifying, saying, okay, I wonder if he even knows what he's talking about and how is he going to answer that question? We're going to miss you. >> it's a good thing I don't have any feelings or pride left. >> yeah. >> otherwise you'd be hurt and you feel bad. But you don't have to do to me. Huh? >> you didn't have any feeling of pride when you came. What do you mean? >> I've just. >> developed it. A couple of questions. I have, uh, fire fighting fire. Wildfire funding fix that expires next year.
▶ 1:24:23Hasn't been any recommendation from the administration to reauthorize that yet. It probably doesn't have to happen till next year. I'd like to get it done. Could you tell me, uh, how that has worked within the forest service? And if you have any, uh, with, uh, any recommendations on any changes that need to be made in that, uh, or if you do come across any would like to know that because I, I talked to the chairman of the resources committee, uh, and we're going to have a conversation about trying to get a bill to
▶ 1:24:53Reauthorize that. I don't want to do it in my interior bill. If they can do it through a regular authorization bill, I want to work with the committee to see if we can get that done. And he's very interested in doing it. So. >> so, Mr. chairman, you're right. It's not in this budget proposal. That's because it expires in 27. So theoretically, it would be an opportunity in 28 to reauthorize. Um to your point, it was very important to the forest service.
▶ 1:25:16So what used to happen for folks that maybe don't recognize this is prior to the fire funding fix, um, when there were fires that exceeded the funding we had in our budget, we had to dip into operations for other management programs. It could be timber, could be recreation, it could be any other number of things that we do. So, um, there was a ten year rolling average that was put in place. Um, so we are more than willing to work with this committee and others to help, uh, have that discussion and advise on any potential changes.
▶ 1:25:45But you're correct that it's not in the budget because theoretically, we still have the fix in place through 27. >> okay. Thank you. One other just one other question that came up. I've been talking with some organizations and groups and stuff. As you can imagine, they come in and talk to all of us. You hire contractors to fight wildfires. Uh, contractors that have employees, and they provide the employees to go fight wildfires and this kind of stuff.
▶ 1:26:14And there are, from my understanding, a whole lot of contractors that are out there that are basically unqualified to do this work because they hire them, they go and they sit down and then they bring in another crew to actually do the work and stuff.
▶ 1:26:32Uh, I understand I'm just hearing this from one side and what they're proposing or what has been suggested is that we start a certification program for these contractors so that, you know, when you hire them, that they are qualified, their employees are qualified, etc. Etc. To fight wildfires, uh, that you're not getting, uh, people that are just doing it because they can get hired and make money. Any thoughts on that? >> um, so Mr.
▶ 1:26:59Chairman, we used to have probably what we're talking about primarily for type two crews that are contracted crews. There was probably ten years ago, there were about 300 type two crews. Today there's probably over 600 that are available. The concern that has come up is those crews, typically they have to make their credentials known. They have to say whether they're going to be see what the rates are going to be so that when you're on a fire and you order a contracted crew, um, it's kind of like a best value issue.
▶ 1:27:27You want to know what it's going to cost for that crew and how close they're located. One of the concerns that's come up is the locations that they say that they're located at. Are those locations accurate? So we have not done independent verification. That's something that I've met with some of the very contractors you're visiting with that we're talking about. And we're doing more review this year. Um, that was a day in the past when there were many fewer crews. Actually, the oregon department of forestry would do some of that validation work. That was where that was done.
▶ 1:27:52So we are looking at what a third party validation process would look like to just bring more credibility to the system so that when somebody says, my crew is here, they're available and they have this capacity that that's all accurate. So when they sign on for the contract, they have to validate. They have to basically say that they could do that. So it would be questioning maybe in some cases when they say they can do it, can they really do it and validating that work. So that's what what is being proposed, I think by the folks you're talking to.
▶ 1:28:21And it is something that we are taking a look at. >> okay, I appreciate that. I look forward to working with you on that, miss pingree. >> thanks. Um, okay, so we had a chance to talk the other day, and I just want to clarify again, um, will either the massabesic or the penobscot experimental forest be impacted by the reorganization. >> Mr. chairman, miss pingree. So right now, we are not proposing any changes to any of the experimental force.
▶ 1:28:47There could be facilities on those that maybe would be closed as a part of the process. And like I said, some of the facilities we have, we have no people in them. In some cases, we have 1 or 2 employees. And so again, we would be looking for locations for them off of that. That could be a local national forest. It could be a district. Um, but we're going to retain the experimental force, the physical forest, the facilities may or may not be retained. I don't know the specifics on those two. I'd have to look those up.
▶ 1:29:14But um, the intent is to retain the experimental force. >> so just to get back to sort of my basic underlying concern about this whole process, and I do understand that you have stated you're going to do further evaluation process. So some facilities could be added to the list. At this point, we don't really know what that is.
▶ 1:29:34If there are facilities that currently don't have any or many employees, some of it could have been because of the doge and, you know, losses of staff that actually we still consider essential. I don't know as much about these facilities, but I have watched very closely what's happened to county offices with ncs under usda, which are also a part of. We have many that have huge vacancies. You know, there should be five people. There's one. We should have more engineers. They're not there.
▶ 1:30:01So it's very hard for us to operate on understanding exactly what you're doing because we don't always know, not seeing all the information and because we're being told, well, things are still under evaluation. And, you know, just listening to this conversation today, we have members of congress asking questions. Um, and we're following the website. I mean, we're getting some of our information off the website. We're, we're the appropriating committee that has oversight on the budget.
▶ 1:30:24I feel like we shouldn't have to go watch the website every day to see if you've made another announcement or something else is going on, because we just don't have sufficient information. When Mr. carter was asking questions about research stations, how many people you know, we all have a whole different set of numbers that we're operating from or percentages. And so I just continue to be deeply disturbed about the overall process and our inability to evaluate what's going to happen, and this confusion about cuts that are in the budget. You know, research staff has cut in the budget.
▶ 1:30:54You're saying, well, that's not cut in the reorganization, but as you reorganization based on not having research staff going into the future, it's somebody else's problem. So I just want to say, I, I'm it's hard to even ask enough questions because there's so little information. It's also thin. Um, you've also been really clear and I appreciate you saying this, that this isn't intended to be a staff reduction effort, but I've been on this committee on appropriations on the agriculture committee. I saw what happened when we moved from ers.
▶ 1:31:24And you just lose a lot of staff. Not everybody's going to move. And I know, with all due respect to salt lake city and I hope we fill up the lake with water again. And you know, everything is good there. Just not everybody is going to be able to move their family from washington dc to salt lake city. And while I support, you know, some of this idea, I mean, I'm from a very rural state. I like people to operate out of the state of maine. I don't think everything should be centralized in washington.
▶ 1:31:50I don't have a basic disagreement with this, but I also don't have a good understanding about how we're going to maintain the expertise and the people, particularly given all the losses that we've already got. So, you know, anything more you can shed, any more light you can shed on that. And also further, um, there are so many state offices that are being potentially closed and I don't know everybody's home state, but not necessarily everybody can move, you know, to a different location in that state.
▶ 1:32:16And so once again, you know, we're just talking about a lot of people with a lot of experience who may be lost in this process. And I feel like, um, I guess my question to you is, you know, what kind of analysis do you have up front? How much are you talking to stakeholders about how this will be impacting your state? I know people in my state have a lot to say about what's going to happen with the loss of state and private partnerships, but what kind of analysis is there? And are you talking to enough stakeholders?
▶ 1:32:45And do you have a real projection of how many people you're going to lose who have been at the core of the expertise of this organization? >> okay, so a lot, a lot packed in there, but I'll do my best. Yes, ma'am. >> and I had so much more to say. I'm just trying to streamline. >> it, Mr. chairman. Miss pingree, um, so overall, there's approximately 30,000 people that work for the forest service today, about 30,000 of those 30,000. Um, and there's different areas.
▶ 1:33:10So in the national capital region, we have roughly, I think 350 employees in the national capital region, we have another 350 assigned to the national capital region that work in the field. They might already be in salt lake. They might be in a different location. So of the 350 in the washington dc office, the intention is that roughly 260 would be relocated from the washington area. So about 120 would be still in the national capital region, with the associate chief would be here led affairs, communications.
▶ 1:33:40Those liaison roles with congress would still be functional here. So that's the national capital region. When we talk about the regional offices. So we have nine regional offices. We talked about closing those all of those facilities. So we have those nine facilities. Six of those facilities would be retained. The employees that work in those facilities, in many cases, will still work in those six facilities. They may have a different job, they may have a different reporting structure. But they the expectations, they would still stay in those facilities or in that vicinity.
▶ 1:34:08There are three offices, one in portland, one in atlanta and one in milwaukee. Those offices we've announced those offices will close. I was in portland the day we made the announcement. I met with employees directly. And this is not to diminish. I mean, there are impacts on employees, right? There are some that will have to relocate and to your point, some will relocate and some will not. And it's heart wrenching for many people. So we're working with those employees. We're working with the unions right now. We have not made all the decisions. We're still in negotiations with the unions on this process.
▶ 1:34:37So there is an active role for the union, so there are not all decisions. That's why I can't tell you everything is fixed in stone yet because we've not even negotiated with the union yet. We're doing that as we speak right now. But the expectation right now of those offices that we know would be closed, those three regional offices and the shifting from the national capital region, the estimate of employees that would have to relocate is approximately 500 out of about 30,000. So that's about 1.5% of the employees we think would have to relocate. Now, could that number be a little bit less? A little bit more? Yes.
▶ 1:35:09Is it impactful to those families? Absolutely. Are we going to work with them to transition them and provide assistance? Yes. We would. We look at their individual circumstances. You bet. Are the unions there at the table representing those folks? Yes they are. So that's that's the overall impact in terms of numbers when it comes to research, the facilities that we're looking at potentially closing. Many of those we've looked at, there are either other facilities in the area, like a national forest. And I actually had a call with research today.
▶ 1:35:34And one of the things we talked about, there are many instances where we might have a research facility that's within 15 miles of a national forest office. So we were maintaining two offices within 15 miles. The research office might have five in the national forest office, maybe has 100, where we could accommodate moving people into the national forest office 15 miles away. So that's the work we're doing right now. When I say we're doing ongoing evaluation, we're trying to be prudent with the taxpayer dollars.
▶ 1:36:01Again, the intent is not to push anybody out the door. The intent really is to be thoughtful about how we do this, looking at where we don't have enough staff to even support a facility. We have a facility. One of our facilities has no people in it. The plumbing doesn't work. And people saw it on a list. Oh my gosh, the facility's going to close yet there's no employees even in that facility. So there's things that we need to do to be prudent managers. And I'll reiterate it again, our intent is to facilitate research and researchers over maintaining facilities and facility managers.
▶ 1:36:31That's really what we're trying to do with this. Now, what we learned through the process. Yes. And of the list of 57 that we put out there saying initially we intend to close these, we're still looking at that. It's I would say it's preliminary. We're evaluating that. We're getting feedback from you all we're getting. I've got a lot of calls from different people. We're getting feedback from locals. I've met with the folks in hilo today, heard from them. Um, like just for instance, in the hilo facility, there's 80 people that work there. I think we have roughly ten researchers and five other forest service employees.
▶ 1:37:00So the majority of people that work in the hilo office either work for other agencies or work for the state, and we have not charged rent commensurate with what the expenses are to operate that facility. So one option would be to increase the rent when everybody else who's in the building, which we occupy, about 15 to 20% of our employees are there, or we could give the facility to the state and say, if the state wants this facility, they could run the facility. So those are the kind of discussions. Like I said, this is not 100% set in stone. We're still open.
▶ 1:37:28We're learning, we're having discussions. Um, and we're evaluating. And to your other point, you're right, there's a lot of information that we're still working through. And I will commit to you. We'll continue to keep you apprized of the situation as we proceed. >> well, I thank you for that. I think it's really critical that we have all the information we possibly can. But I'm just going to reiterate and then stop talking. But, um, we can't assume in this administration, it has to stop assuming at every turn in appropriations that somehow the states are going to take this over or the universities.
▶ 1:37:58And so these deep cuts to research and saying the private sector or the states will pick that up, I don't believe we should turn all research over to the private sector. And I also don't believe the states have the capacity. And universities are already stressed, and many of them have already been punished and stressed by this administration and lost grants for a variety of reasons. Um, I also worry about facilities. You mentioned hilo to me and I don't know anything about that, but where states have come to depend on the forest service making a certain contribution and to suddenly say, you know, it's like turning over the land, okay, now this is your place.
▶ 1:38:29Good luck with it. Or the infrastructure support we gave here is no longer available. States have to scramble to make that up. And so many states are already struggling in a variety of other ways. And keeping us informed is the most beneficial thing you could do. So I appreciate that. I think we still have to continue to raise a lot of questions, and I think it's really critical that this committee realizes that we have an advocacy role that without us, our forests don't get the resources that they need, and we cannot give it all to some other committees who just don't need the money and don't deserve it.
▶ 1:38:57I'm just making it very clear where I am directing my attention. >> I'm not the one who asked for all the. Money for dod with the president. >> I'm just making you complicit in the process. No, I know, I know, we have a willing supporter here, but I'm just saying, you know, it is our role to talk about this committee and not to say there's a shortfall. The administration, you know, we we have a role as appropriators to say, no, you can't you can't move all our money somewhere else anyway. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. chair. Thank you for your time here today. >> Mr. >> I said everything I said.
▶ 1:39:27>> okay, uh. >> Mr. cohen. >> I don't know what's going to happen to me after after, after what the committee just did now. So, jake, you're going to have to have my say. >> yeah. >> all right. We'll start pointing at jake. Sorry. >> Mr. hamadeh. >> my work here is done, I. >> yield Mr. >> manager.
▶ 1:39:53>> well, I want to thank all the subcommittee members for being here and chief schultz for you taking the time to join us. I think it's been a productive hearing. We've you've heard from us. And, uh, and I think you've explained yourself very well and what you plan on doing, and I applaud the efforts that you're making in trying to improve the forest service and the service that the forest service gives. So we look forward to working with you as we go through this year's budget, trying to make sure the 27 budget is, uh, is workable for all of us. Thank you. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:40:22>> subcommittee stands adjourned. >> now we get to go to rosa's. >> did you need a donut?