Heinrich Questions Forest Service Chief Schultz on Whether He Will Follow the Law and Disperse Funds Appropriated by Congress, Stresses Importance of Listening to Local[...]

On Eliminating Funding for State, Private, and Tribal Forestry Programs

Heinrich began, "Chairman Lee said, 'partnerships matter.' You talked about the importance of partnerships, particularly with states, but this budget eliminates the funding for the state, private, and Tribal accounts that really support those partnerships. Talk to me - I don't understand how those two things line up."

Schultz answered, "So Mr. Chairman, Senator Heinrich, historically, state and private programs were set up by the federal government to encourage the states to develop forestry programs, and I have worked in state government for almost 30 years, so I've got extensive experience in those programs. What we've seen over time is that states have developed more expertise. They've developed greater capacity to do much of the work that state and private does. Now, states do come to rely on that funding over time, but what we're proposing here is to reduce that funding. It doesn't mean we're not going to still cooperate. We still cooperate extensively in wildfire management and even land management discussions and opportunities. It just means that there would be a greater reliance for the funding to come from the states and those other partners, but that we would still consult. We would still work directly with states. We would have cooperative agreements that just would not necessarily be the same funding available that we've had in the past."

Heinrich followed, "Historically, if Congress rejects that suggestion, will you commit to dispersing the funds as appropriated by Congress?"

Schutlz asked, "Excuse me, sir?"

Heinrich elaborated, "If Congress rejects the funding level suggested in the President's budget, will you commit to dispersing the funds as appropriated?"

Schultz answered, "Mr. Chairman, Senator Heinrich, yes, we would disperse the funds as required by law. Yes, sir."

On Trump Administration Reversing Pecos Watershed Protections

Heinrich continued, "One of the things that you said in your opening was that 'national forests are more than clean water and places to recreate.' Clean water and recreation are what drive my state's economy, and a great example of that is the Pecos Watershed, which economically supports agriculture, recreation, tourism, hunting, and fishing. Last month, the administration officially canceled the withdrawal application of the Upper Pecos Watershed, and did that over the objection of, to my knowledge, all of the local elected leadership, as well as the agricultural community. This has been an overwhelmingly popular initiative that was driven by the local community. Why didn't the views of the local community carry more weight in the decision-making process, particularly when it's my understanding that there are no current plans for mining operations in this area?"

Schultz answered, "Mr. Chairman, Senator Heinrich, I think you're right. There are no current plans that are identified to us yet. I think what we're trying to make sure is that lands are available and open for multiple use, whether that be grazing, whether that be timber, whether that be mining. So, I think that's the overall perspective, is that we want to make sure lands are available and open for those uses."

Heinrich replied, "The frustration I think, of the local community, is one, they don't feel like they were adequately consulted, and two, they lost other multiple uses as a result of mining impacts and spills on that river where fisheries were deeply impacted, [and] irrigation was not able to be conducted because the Pecos River was, you know, a wash in mine tailings. So, we have to not do multiple use. [It] doesn't mean every single use on every single acre. We've heard a lot of lip service about listening to local communities, but I think we actually need to do that, especially in these cases where the community is of one mind. There is, to my knowledge, no support for new mining in this area."

On Wildland Fire Hazardous Fuels Treatment and Using Infrastructure Law Funds to Pay for Agency Resignations

Heinrich continued, "I want to go back to wildfire hazardous fuels treatments. In 2024, we treated 4.29 million acres. Last year, we treated 3.1. Why the drop? I want to understand why funds from the Infrastructure Bill were used to reduce the workforce, because none of us discuss that as an authorized use when we wrote that legislation. It was a great example of bipartisan legislation, but we thought we were authorizing those infrastructure funds to get into those watersheds and reduce fuels, and instead, those infrastructure funds were used to fund their resignation program. How is that an authorized use?"

Schultz answered, "Chairman, Senator Heinrich, just to clarify on the fuels numbers. In 2025, we treated about 3.3 million acres collectively when you look..."

Heinrich interjected, "When you look down from 4.3..."

Schultz continued, "So it was 4.286 in 24, but I'm going to give you some data. If you go back to 2020, we typically look at trends with data so we don't try to pick out any one given year. So between 2020 and 2025, with that six-year period, we treated, on average, about 3.57 million acres per year over that five-year period, that six-year period. This year, our target is 3.6 million acres, so we're right in there with the average that we've done over the last six years. And we'll continue to prioritize those acres... Last year at this time, we had prescribed fire acres. We treated the entire year, about 1.1 million acres. This year to date, we're at about 1.53, so we've averaged 1.6 million acres a year just with prescribed fire, and this year we're just about right there this early in the season. So, we feel we've made a lot of progress. We are prioritizing field trips, just so we're clear on that. I mean, any given year, things can be up, they can be down, and like we talked about conditions, we'll talk about that more this year. I [have given] to most of you maps of your states to kind of show you the tough conditions. When conditions are that difficult, in Oregon, for instance, we know that snow pack the snow tell data is about we're about less than 20% of average. So our ability to go out and conduct a prescribed fire right now is challenged because we put fire on the landscape when conditions are as difficult as they are. It will challenge us."

Heinrich interjected, "And using infrastructure funds for the..."

Schultz continued, "What we did was, as part of the DRP process, we had obligations to pay folks out. There was about you mentioned the numbers of folks that took the DRP process to leave the agency early, and we had all the funds that we had to look at that we had available to us. And those are funds that we had to accommodate, that, we had about a 700..."

Heinrich interjected, "I just want to be really clear: I don't think any of us voted for funding in the infrastructure bill to be used to reduce the workforce. That was funding that was really focused on watershed treatment."

Schultz answered, "So, sir, we were, we had a shortfall about $750 million in our budget."

Heinrich followed, "But you don't get to just pull money from anywhere. It has to be authorized for that use."

Schultz answered, "We think what we did was legal."

Heinrich followed, "It may be legal. It wasn't what any of us had in mind for those funds."

###