Committee hearing spotlights Fix Our Forest Act, permitting delays and NEPA hurdles

House Natural Resources members and wildfire experts told a congressional hearing that slow permitting and fragmented decision-making have delayed forest treatments and worsened wildfire risk, and they pointed to the Fix Our Forest Act as a tool to speed work on the ground.

The issue matters because lawmakers and practitioners said the current permitting and environmental compliance timelines can take years, limiting the scale of thinning, prescribed burning and fuel-break projects that reduce wildfire hazard to communities in the wildland-urban interface.

Witnesses and members described cases where multi-year delays meant treatments that might have protected communities were completed only after destructive fires. "If FOFA had been in place in 2020, this project could have taken place under 1 10,000-acre categorical exclusion," a committee member said, describing the Angeles National Forest fuel-break program and the delays that followed. Matt Weiner, CEO of MegaFire Action, urged lawmakers to adopt reforms that shorten planning timelines and create clearer avenues for landscape-scale treatments. "Fix Our Forest Act will move the federal government towards a more proactive science based approach to wildfire management," Weiner said in his closing remarks.

Weiner and other witnesses framed the problem in three parts: (1) the time and cost of planning and assessments—often described as consuming a large share of project budgets—(2) the legal and administrative fragmentation across federal, state and local authorities that raises transaction costs, and (3) the lack of a single operational entity responsible for integrating technology and intelligence across jurisdictions. As Weiner noted, expedited authorities and well-designed categorical exclusions have been used in places such as the Lake Tahoe Basin and in sequoia restoration to accelerate treatments, and proponents argued the Fix Our Forest Act would codify and expand those tools.

Witnesses cautioned that reforms should preserve legitimate environmental review. Neil Chapman, a Flagstaff wildland fire captain and member of the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission, said collaborative NEPA processes can work: he cited the Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI), where a multi-year NEPA process proceeded without litigation and now supports landscape-scale treatments. Chapman said the senate version of the legislation incorporated many commission recommendations and included implementation strategies, shared stewardship agreements and a community wildfire risk reduction program.

Members from both parties pressed for examples where streamlined review produced measurable decreases in risk and for assurances that any changes to NEPA or other review pathways would include safeguards. Local chiefs and district leaders urged better federal-local coordination and persistent leadership at the forest-supervisor level to ensure reforms are implemented consistently across forests.

The hearing did not produce formal legislative action or votes. Lawmakers asked witnesses for technical assistance and follow-up materials; the committee left the record open for additional responses and said staff would collect written follow-ups.

Looking ahead, witnesses and several members urged Congress to pair statutory permitting reforms with investments in workforce and long-term implementation funding so that faster approvals translate into more acres treated and maintained over time.