House subcommittee reviews 'Forest Act' to expand tribal co‑management, sawmill pilots and cultural burning on federal forests

The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands on May 20, 2025, heard testimony on the discussion draft Fostering Opportunities to Restore Ecosystems Through Sound Tribal Stewardship Act (Forest Act), a bill intended to increase tribal participation in management of fire‑prone federal forests and to support infrastructure and workforce capacity for restoration.

The Forest Act would authorize pilots to treat certain federal forest lands as Indian forest lands for planning and stewardship purposes, expand the Tribal Forest Protection Act (TFPA) authorities, create tribal sawmill and biomass/biochar demonstration projects, authorize tribal prescribed and cultural burn pilots, clarify tribal participation in Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) and stewardship contracting, and require a report on parity in pay between federal and tribal firefighters.

Supporters said the bill would harness tribal ecological knowledge, speed restoration work and create local jobs; Forest Service and other witnesses warned the draft raises legal and operational issues that need technical fixes and additional agency coordination.

Representative Hurd, the bill sponsor, told the panel the Forest Act "harnesses the profound knowledge and experience of tribes to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and make forests more resilient to drought, insects, and disease." He described provisions to expand stewardship contracting, extend pilot programs and establish tribal sawmill demonstration projects, including 20‑year stewardship contracts intended to provide long‑term certainty to sawmill investors.

John Crockett, Deputy Chief for State, Private and Tribal Forestry at the U.S. Forest Service, said the agency "manages more than a 93,000,000 acres of national forest and grassland across the country" and expressed support for many demonstration projects in the draft. "We support this bill's proposed expansion of demonstration projects that use low value forest biomass, produce biochar, as well as establish and or expand sawmills on or near national forest system lands," Crockett said, while adding that some provisions "raise legal and operational consideration that merit further discussion," particularly language that could treat Forest Service lands as Indian forest lands and involve commingling of trust asset management across agencies.

Tribal witnesses and technical experts said the draft would give tribes tools needed to restore landscapes and protect communities. Tim Freundberg (introduced by the committee as the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians’ director of forest management) said indigenous stewardship is outcome‑focused: "Indigenous management is based on the principle of reciprocity. It's not just about what can be taken from the forest, it's about what must be given back." Sarah Clark, co‑lead of the Stewardship Project, urged coordination and cautioned that importing National Indian Forest Resources Management Act (NIFRMA) approaches onto federal lands should not create overly cumbersome project approval processes.

Witnesses and members highlighted several operational constraints the bill seeks to address. Representative Hurd and others cited widespread sawmill closures and the difficulty of finding nearby processing capacity for low‑value restoration material; Hurd said, "Since February, more than 1,500 sawmills have closed or drastically curtailed their operations." Supporters argued that establishing tribal sawmill demonstration projects and enabling revenue retention under long‑term contracts would create markets for byproducts of restoration and make restoration work more economically viable.

Several witnesses identified legal and implementation questions that the committee and agencies would need to resolve in drafting final language. Deputy Chief Crockett noted concerns about converting Forest Service lands to a designation treated as Indian forest land for some purposes, overlapping civil and criminal jurisdiction questions, and how trust asset management authorities would interact with USDA and Department of the Interior responsibilities. Multiple tribal witnesses said they want prompt agency responses under TFPA and stronger, consistent consultation and staffing for long‑term partnerships.

Members also used the hearing to press agency officials on capacity and budget. Ranking Member Joe Neguse and others criticized a recent reconciliation provision and the administration's budget proposal; they also raised agency personnel issues and cuts that could interfere with consultation and project delivery. Crockett said the Forest Service is "committed to continuing to work with this subcommittee and with tribes" but acknowledged the agency needed to resolve legal and staffing questions; he said the agency had not completed an estimate of the cost or likely uptake for incentives to bring retired fire personnel back for the coming season.

Law, process and litigation were recurring themes. Witnesses emphasized that NEPA, litigation and agency delays have constrained prescribed burning and other restoration approaches, sometimes for years. Several witnesses recommended technical fixes and clarified procedures—such as interagency or pre‑season coordination, timelines for TFPA responses, and explicit public‑access protections—to reduce uncertainty and preserve public access while allowing tribes to lead stewardship in designated areas.

The committee did not vote on the discussion draft. Members and witnesses said they expect additional drafting and interagency work before any markup, and several witnesses urged that the draft be coordinated with companion bills to clarify co‑management and self‑determination authorities. Representative Hurd said he looked "forward to moving this legislation through the committee process," and multiple witnesses and members pledged follow‑up engagement on technical language and on funding and workforce needs.

The hearing record will remain open for written questions and agency follow up; committee staff set a written response deadline for members' questions to be submitted by Friday, May 23, 2025.

Less critical details: the hearing included multiple bipartisan exchanges about related bills (including references to the Fix Our Forest Act, the Explore Act, and other tribal co‑management proposals) and descriptions of local tribal restoration work that members invited colleagues to visit to observe management differences on the ground.