H.Hrg.119

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                   H.R. 1045, H.R. 1655, H.R. 3187,5                             AND H.R. 34446=======================================================================78                          LEGISLATIVE HEARING910                              BEFORE THE1112                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS1314                                 OF THE1516                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES17                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES1819                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2021                             FIRST SESSION2223                               __________2425                         Tuesday, June 10, 20252627                               __________2829                           Serial No. 119-313031                               __________3233       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources3435[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3637        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov38                                   or39          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov4041                               __________4243                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE4460-746 PDF               WASHINGTON : 202645=======================================================================4647                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES4849                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman50                  ROBERT J. WITTMAN, VA, Vice Chairman51                   JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member5253Robert J. Wittman, VA		Joe Neguse, CO54Tom McClintock, CA		Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM55Paul Gosar, AZ			Melanie A. Stansbury, NM56Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS	Val T. Hoyle, OR57Doug LaMalfa, CA		Seth Magaziner, RI58Daniel Webster, FL		Jared Golden, ME59Russ Fulcher, ID		Dave Min, CA60Pete Stauber, MN		Maxine Dexter, OR61Tom Tiffany, WI			Pablo Jose Hernandez, PR62Lauren Boebert, CO		Emily Randall, WA63Cliff Bentz, OR			Yassamin Ansari, AZ64Jen Kiggans, VA			Sarah Elfreth, MD65Wesley P. Hunt, TX		Adam Gray, CA66Mike Collins, GA		Luz Rivas, CA67Harriet M. Hageman, WY		Nydia M. Velazquez, NY68Mark Amodei, NV			Debbie Dingell, MI69Tim Walberg, MI			Darren Soto, FL70Mike Ezell, MS			Julia Brownley, CA71Celeste Maloy, UT		Susie Lee, NV72Addison McDowell, NC73Jeff Crank, CO74Nick Begich, AK75Jeff Hurd, CO76Mike Kennedy, UT77                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director78                      William David, Chief Counsel79               Ana Unruh Cohen, Democratic Staff Director80                   http://naturalresources.house.gov81                                 ------8283                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS8485                       TOM TIFFANY, WI, Chairman86                      MIKE KENNEDY, UT, Vice Chair87                     JOE NEGUSE, CO, Ranking Member8889Tom McClintock, CA                   Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM90Russ Fulcher, ID                     Melanie A. Stansbury, NM91Pete Stauber, MN                     Jared Golden, ME92Cliff Bentz, OR                      Maxine Dexter, OR93Wesley P. Hunt, TX                   Emily Randall, WA94Mark Amodei, NV                      Susie Lee, NV95Celeste Maloy, UT                    Jared Huffman, CA, ex officio96Mike Kennedy, UT97Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio9899                                 ------100                                CONTENTS101102                              ----------103                                                                   Page104105Hearing Memo.....................................................     v106Hearing held on Tuesday, June 10, 2025...........................     1107108Statement of Members:109110    Tiffany, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the111      State of Wisconsin.........................................     2112    Neguse, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State113      of Colorado................................................     3114115    Panel I:116117    Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the118      State of California........................................     4119    Bentz, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the120      State of Oregon............................................     7121    Kennedy, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the122      State of Utah..............................................     8123    Hill, Hon. French, a Representative in Congress from the124      State of Arkansas, prepared statement for the record.......    41125126Statement of Witnesses:127128    Panel II:129130    Crockett, John, Deputy Chief of State, Private and Tribal131      Forestry, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.............     8132        Prepared Statement of....................................    10133134    Panel III:135136    Blackmon, Hon. Larry, Judge, Perry County, Perryville,137      Arkansas...................................................    19138        Prepared Statement of....................................    21139    Yocom, Larissa, Director, Utah Forest Restoration Institute,140      Logan, Utah................................................    22141        Prepared Statement of....................................    24142    Tripp, Bill, Director of Natural Resources and Environmental143      Policy, Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources,144      Orleans, California........................................    25145        Prepared Statement of....................................    27146    Andreas, Greg, General Manager, Ponderosa Telephone, O'Neals,147      California.................................................    30148        Prepared Statement of....................................    31149150[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]151152To:        Subcommittee on Federal Lands Republican Members153154From:     Subcommittee on Federal Lands; Aniela Butler and William155        Kelleher (Aniela@mail.house.gov and156        William.Kelleher@mail.house.gov; x6-7736)157158Date:     Monday, June 9, 2025159160Subject:   Legislative Hearing on 4 Bills161________________________________________________________________________162        _______163164    The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will hold a legislative hearing165on 4 bills: H.R. 1045 (Rep. Kennedy), ``Utah Wildfire Research166Institute Act of 2025''; H.R. 1655 (Rep. Bentz), ``Wildfire167Communications Resiliency Act''; H.R. 3187 (Rep. Hill), To require the168Secretary of Agriculture to convey a parcel of property of the Forest169Service to Perry County, Arkansas, and for other purposes; and H.R.1703444 (Rep. Huffman), ``Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in171Forestry Act of 2025.''172    The hearing will take place on Tuesday, June 10, 2025, at 10:15173a.m. in room 1324 Longworth House Office Building.174    Member offices are requested to notify Will Rodriguez175(Will.Rodriguez@mail.house.gov) by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, June 9, 2025,176if their Member intends to participate in the hearing.177I. KEY MESSAGES178179     The pieces of legislation featured in this hearing offer180            targeted solutions to improve land and forest management,181            collaborate with non-federal partners to inform science-182            based management practices, and reduce bureaucratic183            processes post-natural disaster.184185     This hearing helps advance President Trump's agenda and186            recent executive actions, including the executive orders on187            ``Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production'' and188            ``Restoring Common Sense to Federal Office Space189            Management.'' 1190191     House Committee on Natural Resources Republicans are192            committed to strengthening Tribal stewardship of fire-prone193            landscapes and fostering meaningful partnerships between194            Tribes and the federal government. This hearing complements195            a prior hearing on related draft legislation, the196            ``Fostering Opportunities to Restore Ecosystems through197            Sound Tribal Stewardship (FORESTS) Act.'' 2198199II. WITNESSES200Panel I (Members of Congress):201     To Be Announced202203Panel II (Administration Witnesses):204205     Mr. John Crockett, Deputy Chief of State, Private and206            Tribal Forestry, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C. [All207            bills]208209Panel III (Outside Experts):210     The Honorable Larry Blackmon, Judge, Perry County,211            Perryville, AR [H.R. 3187]212213     Ms. Larissa Yocom, Director, Utah Forest Restoration214            Institute, Logan, UT [H.R. 1045]215216     Mr. Greg Andreas,  General Manager, Go Ponderosa, O'Neals,217            CA [H.R. 1655]218219     Mr. Bill Tripp, Director of Natural Resources and220            Environmental Policy, Karuk Tribe Department of Natural221            Resources, Orleans, CA [H.R. 3444] [Minority Witness]222223III. BACKGROUND224H.R. 1045 (Rep. Kennedy), ``Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of225        2025''226    The ``Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of 2004''227authorized the creation of wildfire research centers in Arizona,228Colorado, and New Mexico ``to promote the use of adaptive ecosystem229management to reduce the risk of wildfires, and restore the health of230forest and woodland ecosystems, in the interior West.'' 3231These centers, collectively known as the Southwest Ecological232Restoration Institutes (SWERI), now operate at Colorado State233University, New Mexico Highlands University, and Northern Arizona234University.4 Today, these centers conduct cutting-edge235research on wildfires and forest management 5 and236collaborate with land managers to ensure the implementation of science-237based forest management decisions. As part of this work, SWERI must238produce annual, peer-reviewed, scientific reports and develop work239plans with the Secretary of Agriculture to ensure accountability.240    Despite a long track record of being at the forefront of241responsible resource management and forestry research, Utah is242currently the only Four Corners State without a SWERI center. To243address this disparity, H.R. 1045 would amend the ``Southwest Forest244Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of 2004'' to create one additional245SWERI center in the State of Utah.6 This legislation would246provide Utah with additional resources to conduct research and247collaborate on wildfire mitigation, forest management, and watershed248restoration projects. Further, this legislation allows the State of249Utah to leverage academic resources to collaborate with federal, state,250and local stakeholders; develop adaptive forest management techniques;251and implement fuel reduction strategies.7 A similar version252of this legislation passed the Senate unanimously in the 118th253Congress, and a companion bill has been introduced this Congress by254Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Mike Lee (R-255UT).8256H.R. 1655 (Rep. Bentz), ``Wildfire Communications Resiliency Act''257[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]258259    Increasingly dangerous and severe wildfires are a growing260threat to critical infrastructure, including communications facilities.261According to recent studies, ``hundreds to thousands of cell262transceivers are within wildfire perimeters each year,'' causing263blackouts, loss of connectivity, and damage or destruction of264communications infrastructure.9 This issue impacts millions265of people annually, as researchers have found that there are more than26657,500 cell transceivers in high-fire risk areas that serve populations267over 1.5 million people.10 Most recently, the Eaton Fire in268Los Angeles threatened the antenna farm and broadcasting transmitters269at Mount Wilson, causing temporary limits to ``the broadcasting270capabilities of Los Angeles' major TV and radio stations.''27111272    If a communications facility is damaged or destroyed during a273wildfire on federal lands, developers must go through a lengthy and274burdensome permitting process to rebuild this infrastructure. This275process is not only duplicative, since environmental and historic276preservation reviews would already have been conducted during the277facility's initial permitting process, but it also significantly delays278the ability to bring critical wireless and communications capabilities279back online post-fire. To address this problem, H.R. 1655 would remove280the need to complete duplicative National Environmental Policy Act281(NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) reviews for282certain communications facilities already permitted that need to be283rebuilt or repaired due to wildfire damage.12 The bill284applies only to areas where the President, the governor of a state, or285a Tribal chief executive have declared a major disaster or emergency.286Projects must occur within five years of the declaration, occur287entirely within the impacted area, and focus on replacing damaged288facilities or upgrading infrastructure to reduce future risk.289[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]290291    The bill addresses a critical gap in post-disaster recovery292efforts: the timely restoration of essential communications systems.293Lengthy and duplicative environmental and historic preservation reviews294often delay construction projects that are critical to restoring295services and public safety. H.R. 1655 offers a narrow, targeted296solution designed to expedite recovery without broadly waiving the need297to complete environmental or cultural resources reviews on the initial298construction of a communications facility. Through this tailored299approach, this legislation helps ensure rapid response capacity and300resilient infrastructure in wildfire-prone regions.301H.R. 3187 (Rep. Hill), To require the Secretary of Agriculture to302        convey a parcel of property of the Forest Service to Perry303        County, Arkansas, and for other purposes.304    This legislation removes a burden from the American taxpayer by305disposing of a vacant federal building, consistent with President306Trump's Executive Order on ``Restoring Common Sense to Federal Office307Space Management.'' 13308[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]309310    Perry County, Arkansas, is a rural area northwest of Little311Rock with roughly 10,000 residents.14 The U.S. Forest312Service (USFS) manages approximately 119,171 acres of forested land and313administrative buildings in Perry County.15 One such314building, located on approximately 0.81 acres of land in Perryville,315Arkansas, is currently vacant, and USFS has no future plans for its316use. Perry County has long sought to acquire this property to meet317growing needs in education, conservation, and youth services, but has318been unsuccessful in doing so for more than a decade.16319    H.R. 3187 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey this320building and its surrounding land to Perry County. Perry County intends321to renovate and repurpose the site to support the University of322Arkansas Extension Program, the Perry County Conservation District, and323youth development programs such as 4-H.17 This is a smart324use of public resources that would serve a compelling public purpose,325particularly in a rural county with limited financial resources.326Creating a permanent space for the University of Arkansas Extension327Program and 4-H Youth Development Program would enhance their328coordination and allow them to expand outreach to more Perry County329youth. H.R. 3187 provides a cost-effective solution that leverages330existing infrastructure for community use and empowers local efforts to331support economic development, natural resource stewardship, and youth332engagement.333H.R. 3444 (Rep. Huffman), ``Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management334        in Forestry Act of 2025''335    H.R. 3444 seeks to enhance the role of Tribal governments in the336management of federal lands by formally authorizing new and existing337co-management plans between Tribes and federal land management338agencies. Section 2 of the bill directs the Bureau of Land Management339(BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service340(NPS), and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to develop a ``Tribal Co-341Management Plan'' in consultation with the Department of the Interior's342(DOI) Tribal Advisory Committee. These plans would cover forest and343grassland planning and management activities, research and development,344restoration activities, and recreational services on federal lands.345Section 3 directs DOI to ensure that employees involved in the346formulation of these plans undergo training on working with Tribes on347the development and execution of such plans. Finally, Section 4 directs348USFS to enter into at least five agreements over a four-year period to349carry out forest management, research, recreation, or restoration350activities. This section stipulates that USFS cannot delegate any351nondelegable functions to Tribes and lays out a process for Tribes to352request to enter into agreements with USFS. Finally, this section353authorizes $50 million in appropriations for five years.354    The Federal Lands Subcommittee recently held a legislative hearing355on a discussion draft of Tribal forestry legislation led by Indian and356Insular Affairs Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Hurd (R-CO-03) entitled the357``Fostering Opportunities to Restore Ecosystems through Sound Tribal358Stewardship (FORESTS) Act.'' Information about that legislation can be359found at link below:360361https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hearing_memo_--362_sub_on_fl_leg_hrg_on_forests_act__05.20.25.pdf363364    Both the FORESTS Act and H.R. 3444 illustrate that there is room365for bipartisan agreement on some crucial forest management issues. As366USFS testified in the legislative hearing on the FORESTS Act,367encouraging more Tribal co-stewardship of overgrown, fire-prone federal368lands is also consistent with President Trump's Executive Order on369``Immediate Expansion of Timber Production.'' 18370    Outstanding questions remain regarding H.R. 3444. For example,371Sections 2 and 3 of the legislation exclude USFS, a critical agency for372co-stewardship in forestry, and are ambiguous about how Tribal Co-373Management Plans and associated training will interact with existing374land use or resource management plans. Further, it is unclear what375portion of these plans actually delegates co-management authority to376Tribes. There are also questions about how Section 4 interacts with377existing authorities, primarily the Tribal Forest Protection Act of3782004 and Good Neighbor Authority.19 Further, the un-offset379authorization of appropriations does not comply with Republican floor380protocols.381IV. MAJOR PROVISIONS & SECTION-BY-SECTION382H.R. 1045 (Rep. Kennedy), ``Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of383        2025''384Section 2. Additional Institute.385386     Amends the ``Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire387            Prevention Act of 2004'' to add Utah as a fourth location388            for a SWERI center, joining Arizona, New Mexico, and389            Colorado.390391H.R. 1655 (Rep. Bentz), ``Wildfire Communications Resiliency Act''392Section 2. Application of NEPA and NHPA to Covered Communications393        Projects.394     Exempts certain covered communications projects from NEPA395            and NHPA reviews.20 In order to qualify, a396            covered communications project must be:397398     Carried out entirely in an area where the President, a399            Governor, or Indian Tribe has declared a major disaster or400            emergency related to wildfire;401402     Carried out within five years of such declaration; and403404     Designed to replace or make improvements to a communications405            facility necessary to recover from, mitigate, or prevent a406            wildfire.407408H.R. 3187 (Rep. Hill), To require the Secretary of Agriculture to409        convey a parcel of property of the Forest Service to Perry410        County, Arkansas, and for other purposes.411Section 1. Conveyance of Specified Forest Service Property to Perry412        County, Arkansas.413414     Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to convey415            approximately 0.81 acres of USFS land to Perry County,416            Arkansas within 180 days of the bill's enactment if the417            county submits a written request for the conveyance.418419     Specifies that the conveyance will be made subject to420            valid and existing rights, without consideration, and that421            the exact property to be conveyed will be determined based422            on the results of a mutually satisfactory survey.423424     Requires Perry County to pay all costs associated with the425            conveyance.426427     Specifies that the Secretary of Agriculture shall not have428            to provide a covenant or warranty for the property under429            the ``Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,430            and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980.'' 21431432H.R. 3444 (Rep. Huffman), ``Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management433        in Forestry Act of 2025''434Section 2. Tribal Co-Management Plans of the Department of the435        Interior.436437     Requires BLM, NPS, FWS, and BIA to develop a ``Tribal Co-438            Management Plan'' within one year of the bill's enactment,439            or, if a substantially similar plan already exists, to440            adopt and update it within 120 days of the bill's441            enactment. These plans must be developed in consultation442            with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary's443            Tribal Advisory Committee (chartered on November 11, 2021).444445     Specifies that the plans must identify any activity,446            service, or function to be carried out on federally447            administered lands that the Secretary of the Interior448            determines need such action; are consistent with existing449            land management plans; have historical, cultural, or450            geographical significance to an Indian Tribe; and comply451            with applicable environmental laws and regulations. Actions452            also included in this identification are forest and453            grassland planning and management, research and454            development, restoration, and recreational service455            activities.456457Section 3. Tribal Co-Management Training.458459     Requires all DOI employees involved in developing and460            carrying out a Tribal Co-Management Plan to complete a461            training on Indigenous knowledge, the Tribal history of the462            areas in which they work, as well as the federal463            government's trust responsibility to Indian Tribes.464465     Allows the Secretary of the Interior to consult with466            Indian Tribes.467468Section 4. Authority to Enter into Agreements with Indian Tribes and469        Tribal Organizations to Carry Out Certain Forest Service470        Activities.471472     Requires the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the473            Chief of the Forest Service, to enter, within four years,474            into at least five co-management agreements with Indian475            Tribes or Tribal organizations under this bill or existing476            authorities (such as the Indian Self-Determination and477            Education Assistance Program or the Agriculture Improvement478            Act of 2018).22 Such agreements can cover forest479            and grassland planning and management, research and480            development, restoration, and recreational service481            activities, as well as activities of the Heritage Program.482483     Specifies that co-management agreements must be carried484            out on National Forest System (NFS) lands, consistent with485            the applicable forest plan and applicable laws, and486            relevant to an applicable Indian Tribe. Co-management487            agreements cannot include activities that are nondelegable,488            conflict with existing stewardship contracts, or require489            Tribal reliance on a state government for necessary490            resources.491492     Stipulates that Tribes must submit a formal proposal to493            request an agreement, including a description of proposed494            activities and identification of the relevant NFS lands.495496     Sets up considerations for the Secretary of Agriculture to497            evaluate proposals from Tribes and requirements for denying498            Tribal requests. In particular, the Secretary of499            Agriculture is permitted to evaluate proposals on a best-500            value basis and give special consideration to factors such501            as historical Tribal ties to the land, landscape502            characteristics, prior collaboration with USFS, access503            needs, as well as Indigenous knowledge and skills.504505     Sets terms and conditions for payments to Tribes under co-506            management agreements and sets parameters to reduce507            paperwork requirements on Tribes that receive payments.508509     Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to review agreements510            every five years, offering modifications or termination if511            appropriate, and allows for earlier review at the request512            of Tribes following a natural disaster.513514     Requires the publication of a non-exhaustive list of515            activities in the Federal Register that are eligible for516            co-management agreements every three years.517518     Requires a report to Congress every three years of the519            accomplishments made using this authority.520521     Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to consult with522            Indian Tribes on Indigenous knowledge and data sovereignty.523524     Allows Tribes to be considered USFS employees under the525            Federal Tort Claims Act.23526527     Exempts activities under this section from the528            requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.529530     Specifies that nothing in this section affects the current531            or future rights of any Indian Tribe or their authority to532            enter into agreements, provides for the exclusive use of533            NFS lands, or limits the Secretary of Agriculture from534            entering into other agreements.535536     Authorizes $50 million in funding from fiscal year (FY)537            2026 through FY 2030 to carry out this section.538539V. COST540    A formal cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)541is not yet available for any of the bills.542VI. ADMINISTRATION POSITION543    The Trump administration's position is unknown at this time.544VII. EFFECT ON CURRENT LAW (RAMSEYER)545    H.R. 1045546547https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bill-to-548law_119hr1045ih.pdf549[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]550551LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1045, UTAH WILDFIRE RESEARCH INSTITUTE ACT552OF 2025; H.R. 1655, WILDFIRE COMMUNICATIONS RESILIENCY ACT; H.R. 3187,553TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO CONVEY A PARCEL OF PROPERTY554    OF THE FOREST SERVICE TO PERRY COUNTY, ARKANSAS, AND FOR OTHER555PURPOSES; AND H.R. 3444, TRIBAL SELF-DETERMINATION AND CO-MANAGEMENT IN556                          FORESTRY ACT OF 2025557558                              ----------559560                         Tuesday, June 10, 2025561562                        House of Representatives563564                     Subcommittee on Federal Lands565566                     Committee on Natural Resources567568                            Washington, D.C.569570                              ----------571572    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m. in573Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom Tiffany574[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.575    Present: Representatives Tiffany, Fulcher, Stauber, Bentz,576Amodei, Maloy, Kennedy; Neguse, Leger Fernandez, and Huffman.577    Also present: Representatives Hill; and Hoyle.578    Mr. Tiffany. The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will come to579order.580    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a581recess of the Subcommittee at any time.582    The Subcommittee is meeting today to consider four bills:583H.R. 1045 by Representative Kennedy, Utah Wildlife--Wildfire584Research Institute Act of 2025; H.R. 1655, sponsored by585Representative Bentz, the Wildfire Communications Resiliency586Act; H.R. 3187, Representative Hill; H.R. 3444, by Ranking587Member Huffman, the Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management588in Forestry Act of 2025.589    I ask unanimous consent that the following members be590allowed to participate in today's hearing from the dais: the591gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Hoyle.592    Without objection, so ordered.593    Under Committee rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at594hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority595Member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other596members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record597if they are submitted in accordance with Committee rule 3(o).598    Without objection, so ordered.599    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.600601STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM TIFFANY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS602                  FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN603604    Mr. Tiffany. Today the Subcommittee on Federal Lands meets605to consider four pieces of legislation that will address our606Nation's forest health and wildfire crisis. Across the United607States more than 1.2 million acres have already burned this608year. As we enter the height of wildland fire activity over the609next few months, it is critical we advance solutions that will610restore forest health, cut red tape, and prevent catastrophic611wildfires.612    We simply cannot afford to wait. That is why the House613passed the Fix Our Forests Act earlier this year on a614bipartisan basis. The Senate Agriculture Committee has already615held two hearings on FOFA, and I look forward to continuing to616work with my bipartisan Senate counterparts to send this bill617to the President's desk soon.618    We cannot truly address the wildfire crisis unless we have619the right data. Representative Kennedy's Utah Wildfire Research620Institute Act of 2025 would create a new Southwest Ecological621Restoration Institute to help advance cutting-edge research622that can be applied on the ground to achieve true results. In623Utah more than 190,000 people live in areas considered to be at624high risk of fire. Despite this, Utah is the only four-corner625State without a Southwest Ecological Restoration Institute.626Representative Kennedy's legislation resolves this issue,627keeping Utahns safe and ensuring the State remains at the628forefront of wildland fire research.629    I would also like to highlight Representative Bentz's630Wildfire Communications Resiliency Act. Across the country631there are tens of thousands of communications facilities at632risk of wildland fire. When those facilities are damaged or633destroyed on Federal lands, companies must undergo a lengthy634permitting process for these facilities to be repaired or635rebuilt. For the millions of Americans that rely on fast,636accessible communications infrastructure, these long wait times637are unacceptable.638    Representative Bentz's legislation is a common-sense639solution to this problem, and would allow facilities damaged by640wildfires to be rebuilt quickly without undergoing duplicative641environmental reviews. This is not an exemption from any type642of environmental review. In fact, in order to be built in the643first place these facilities must undergo extensive644environmental analysis. The mere fact that communications645facilities are damaged during wildfires should not mean that646they are forced to undertake the same duplicative processes647that have already been completed.648    In addition to this legislation, we will also consider649legislation from Representative Hill to convey a vacant Forest650Service building in Perryville, Arkansas to the local community651so they can better utilize it as an education and community652outreach center. This thoughtful legislation is a win-win, as653it reduces the burden on the Federal taxpayer and helps advance654President Trump's recent executive order on restoring common655sense to Federal office space management.656    Finally, the Federal Lands Subcommittee will continue its657important work today elevating Tribes as full partners in658managing overgrown, fire-prone forests. In our last hearing we659heard testimony on Representative Hurd's FORESTS Act, which660provides several new tools to the Forest Service and Department661of the Interior to expand tribal stewardship of Federal662forests. I look forward to continuing that important discussion663today.664    I would like to thank each of the sponsors of today's665legislation for bringing forward these thoughtful proposals. I666also want to thank all the witnesses for being here today, and667I look forward to the insights that each of you will bring to668this important discussion.669    Mr. Tiffany. With that I will yield back and recognize the670Ranking Member, Mr. Neguse, for his opening statement.671672STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE NEGUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS673                   FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO674675    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all676of our colleagues for joining us today for the hearing and, of677course, our witnesses.678    We are here to consider, as the Chairman referenced, four679very different bills focused on wildfire research,680communications infrastructure, tribal self-determination, and a681land conveyance. Any meaningful response to the wildfire682crisis, which I agree is certainly a crisis, demands science-683driven solutions, strong interagency coordination, and respect684for Indigenous knowledge. The bills that we are considering685today offer some useful innovations in that regard, and so I686look forward to digging into the details.687    Starting with H.R. 1045, the Utah Wildfire Research688Institute Act, I want to thank Representative Kennedy for his689effort to expand wildfire research capacity by including Utah690in the Southwest Ecological Restoration Institutes network. As691I am sure Mr. Kennedy is aware, the institute at Colorado State692University is in my district, and I have certainly seen693firsthand how these collaborative programs in Fort Collins have694supported forest health and wildfire preparedness, and so695grateful to my colleague for introducing this bill to add our696neighbor to the west to the network.697    I do want to say, you know, for the record, that I am very698concerned, remain deeply concerned about the Forest Service's699proposed 55 percent funding cut to the Southwest Ecological700Restoration Institute's network programs for Fiscal Year 2025.701That threatens the institute programs, including in Fort702Collins and any other programs that might be added in other703States and the viability, I would think, of a new Utah704institute. And so I think that is important contextually for us705to be considering.706    It is troubling to me that the Administration has proposed707completely eradicating the Forest Service's research budget.708Research is a fundamental pillar of our response to the709wildfire crisis that k our communities safe, promotes710forest health, and enhances resilience to climate change. This711requires sustained funding and investment in order to be712successful, and so I hope that that is an issue that we can713address in a bipartisan manner as we look into the possibility714of adding a new institute in Utah.715    With respect to H.R. 1655, introduced by Representative716Bentz, this bill I understand he is very passionate about with717respect to rebuilding communication systems after wildfires,718and I certainly agree that rebuilding those systems after719natural disasters or wildfires is a real and urgent need. But I720have some concerns with respect to the legislation he has721proposed, and so I look forward to asking some questions of the722witnesses to further unpack that particular bill.723    Next we are discussing H.R. 3187 from Representative Hill.724This bill proposes transferring a small parcel of Forest725Service land to Perry County, Arkansas. I want to thank the726Chairman and my colleagues for bringing the bill to our727Subcommittee through the regular order process. This is an728example of how a bill like this ought to be considered, and so729I look forward to hearing more about the transfer and730considering that bill.731    Lastly, but certainly not least, we will be discussing H.R.7323444, the Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management and733Forestry Act, introduced by, of course, the Ranking Member of734our full Committee, Mr. Huffman. I am proud to be an original735co-sponsor of this bill and to support the legislation which I736think is thoughtful and insightful and forward-thinking. The737bill creates new tools for true partnerships between tribal738nations and Federal agencies, moving us beyond consultation739toward shared governance. It centers tribal voices in forest740planning and resource protection, reduces barriers that might741limit tribal co-management. Tribal co-management, of course, is742not new, but Congress can do a whole lot more to fulfill our743treaty and our trust responsibilities to tribal nations.744    Mr. Neguse. So again, I am looking forward to considering745all of these bills today, and I will yield back the balance of746my time.747    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you to the Ranking Member.748    And now I would like to recognize the Ranking Member of the749full Committee, Mr. Huffman, for your opening statement.750751   STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN752             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA753754    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.755    Folks, I am pleased to see a really productive agenda for756us today. There are a number of bills here reflecting issues757where we ought to be able to do some things together on a758bipartisan basis, productive, common-sense, problem-solving759things. Some of these are easier than others, but it is a good,760productive agenda.761    And Mr. Chair, I just want to say, as we continue to try to762advance work like this in this Committee, we have to also talk763about the disconnect going on right now because we can say that764we care about wildfire research, which I think we all do, we765can express a desire to get communications back up online after766wildfires and natural disasters. We can talk about these, you767know, rather routine land transfer issues that come up from768time to time. Those are important, too. I have had bills that769do that. And certainly, we can and we need to work together on770tribal co-management. But all of those things are a lot harder771to do when you are slashing budgets in a reckless way and772hollowing out this agency, and dismantling its ability to do773all of the things that I just mentioned and that these bills774all represent.775    And unfortunately, there has just been too much silence776across the aisle in the face of some blatant disregarding of777the law and total chaos from these budget cuts and these778actions of DOGE, including at the Forest Service where funds779for everything from hazardous fuel management to research on780wildfire risk to recreation, all of it, was halted earlier last781year and the agency is still reeling from that disruption. Now,782I am relieved to see that some of the funds are starting to be783unfrozen. Some of it is starting to move again. But I am784concerned about the President's recently-released budget785proposal which would decimate the Forest Service, an agency786that Congress has actually under-invested in for too long.787    You know, House Democrats, a couple of Congresses ago788prioritized investment in this agency through the Inflation789Reduction Act, the Great American Outdoors Act, and the790infrastructure law. But those investments and the future of the791agency are at risk right now, and we need to be talking about792that.793    The President's recently-released budget cuts the agency's794budget by more than 75 percent, reduces salaries and expenses795for Forest Service employees by $342 million, eliminates the796Forest Service's research arm. Wildfire research is hard to do797when you are eliminating the agency's research arm. And it798zeroes out funding for the State, private, and tribal forestry799program. Now, that is going to be obviously an important800program if we are serious about tribal co-management.801    State, Private, and Tribal Forestry is the office,802thankfully, that we have represented here today. So I look803forward to hearing from Deputy Chief Crockett about how this804critical aspect of the Forest Service will function without any805funding. Maybe he has some magical solution to that dilemma,806but I hope that he will call it the way it is. I don't think807that office and that program works without funding, and we808ought to be able to talk frankly about that. This is809particularly relevant as the Committee discusses bills like810mine to enhance tribal co-management and self-determination.811New authorities and programs simply cannot function without812staff and without resources to back them up.813    Mr. Huffman. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.814    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Ranking Member Huffman. We are815going to now move on to our first panel, which consists of816members who are sponsoring today's legislation. And Mr.817Huffman, you are on a roll. You get another 5 minutes with H.R.8183444 to be able to explain your bill.819    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Give me a chance to820catch my breath. But now I get to talk about my bill. I want to821thank the majority for including it in this hearing. This is,822of course, my Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in823Forestry Act.824    Just a few weeks ago the Subcommittee brought together a825distinguished panel of witnesses who were leaders in tribal826forestry. And each of them I have had the privilege of working827with and developing my legislation. Every one of them828importantly emphasized that tribal forestry should be a829bipartisan issue for this Committee, and I am certainly830committed to making that so.831    I look forward to hearing from Mr. Tripp today. He has832years of experience working with the Karuk Tribe's Natural833Resources Department. Mr. Tripp knows that in my district the834Karuk Tribe and others have been leaders in forest management,835the integration of cultural burns, use of Indigenous knowledge836on lands with generations of history that remain deeply tied to837them. I hope my Republican colleagues and Chair Westerman will838continue to work with us and with Tribes and tribal839organizations, all of whom share the goal of bringing Tribes840into the decision-making process when it comes to managing our841Federal lands.842    Tribal nations have played a key role in land management843since time immemorial, and it is past time for the Federal land844management agencies to start working with them as equal845partners, to take a step towards fulfilling our trust and846treaty obligations to tribal nations. That is what my847legislation is all about. My bill ensures that Tribes not only848have a seat at the table, but a meaningful stake in decisions849affecting their communities.850    The legislation provides that the Forest Service will have851additional standalone authority to enter into co-management852agreements with Tribes to carry out critical wildfire853prevention work and other forest management activities on our854national forest lands. It gives Tribes more authority to build855on the work that they have already been doing through the856National Forest System to improve water quality, preserve857culturally significant species and places, and manage invasives858and sustain natural resources.859    These are broadly-supported policy goals, but we are all860well aware on this Committee that work that is needed in our861national forest is often halted by devastating wildfires and862other natural disasters. This legislation provides more863flexibility to adjust co-management plans in the event of that864kind of disruption, and also allows Tribes to request review865from the Forest Service to keep things on track.866    I am glad to see the Forest Service here today, as this867legislation builds on critical tribal consultation that USDA868and the Forest Service have conducted to expand and advance869self-determination in forestry. Many of the ideas proposed870during that consultation are reflected in my legislation.871    To help Congress address the wildfire crisis, USDA worked872with the Department of the Interior, with Homeland Security,873and FEMA to establish the Wildland Fire Mitigation and874Management Commission, and that commission developed875comprehensive recommendations for improving wildfire response.876One key recommendation was for the USDA to have standalone877authorities to enter into co-management agreements with tribal878nations. That is exactly what my bill does.879    The bill would also enhance tribal stewardship at Interior880by directing each land management agency to collaboratively881develop tribal co-management plans with the Secretary's Tribal882Advisory Committee. So the focus of the bill clearly is883forestry and the Forest Service, but we think that the tribal884co-management policies there will become models for all public885land agencies, and we want to get the Interior agencies moving886forward with their own planning and tribal co-management887activities as well.888    All Department of the Interior employees would be involved889in developing or implementing tribal co-management plans. They890would also be required to receive culturally appropriate891training, including education on the trust relationship between892the Federal Government and tribal nations.893    So I hope my colleagues share our commitment to delivering894for Tribes and their forestry goals. I urge them to work with895us on this legislation to ensure that the Administration's896actions do not irreparably harm Indian Country.897    Mr. Huffman. And I yield back.898    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you to the Ranking Member. And I899would now like to recognize the gentleman from Oregon, Mr.900Bentz, for his statement in regards to H.R. 1655.901902STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLIFF BENTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS903                    FROM THE STATE OF OREGON904905    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and906members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to907present my bill, H.R. 1655, the Wildfire Communications908Resiliency Act. This legislation was crafted as a direct909response to the devastating wildfire seasons we have seen in910the West, and in Oregon in particular.911    In 2024, just last year, nearly 2 million acres burned in912Oregon, and approximately 900,000 of those acres are in my913district alone sadly, setting new records. Many of these fires914struck rural communities where communication infrastructure is915already limited, and the loss of even a single tower or line916can strand entire counties from emergency resources during917these disasters. My district includes 20 such counties.918    In too many cases the process of rebuilding or upgrading919communication systems has been delayed not due to technical920difficulty, but because of bureaucratic rules and regulations.921Federal environmental reviews under NEPA and the National922Historic Preservation Act often take months or sometimes years923to complete, even when the project simply seeks to replace or924harden equipment destroyed in a federally declared disaster925area. This is not just inefficient, it is dangerous and926absolutely makes no sense.927    H.R. 1655 provides a targeted exemption from these reviews928for communication infrastructure projects located within the929footprint of a declared wildfire disaster. It applies only to930facilities that are replacing damaged structures or upgrading931systems for greater fire resilience. This bill is not about932circumventing environmental protection; it is about enabling933our communities to recover and prepare without unnecessary and934duplicative hurdles that cost time, money, and, in some cases,935lives.936    This bill represents a common-sense approach to disaster937recovery, which is grounded in the reality that our communities938are facing growing threats from increasingly severe wildfires.939In times of emergency people need reliable, necessary, and940essential communication networks that are up and operational to941coordinate rescue efforts, receive emergency alerts, and942maintain contact with loved ones. Bureaucratic permitting943delays and lengthy environmental assessments should not hinder944this urgent and necessary restoration process.945    Thank you. I look forward to your questions, and I yield946back.947    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative Bentz. I now948recognize Representative Kennedy for 5 minutes on H.R. 1045.949950    STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE KENNEDY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN951                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH952953    Dr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to the Ranking954Member Neguse, as well as my fellow Committee members. I am955grateful to be here to present my bill, which is a simple bill.956    As an oversight to the 2004 Southwest Forest Health and957Wildfire Prevention Act, Utah was not included in the Four958Corners States--Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado were included959in--the opportunity to have a Southwest Ecological Restoration960Institute, or SWERI Institute, and this bill amends that Act961with inclusion of Utah as a State that has one of these962institutes.963    And I am actually pleased to report that in 2024 the State964legislature actually authorized the formation of an institute965housed at Utah State University, and also provided start-up966funding already for that institute. And my witness later on,967Dr. Yocom, will testify to the fact that the State of Utah is968ready to stand up that institute.969    Utah has a unique geographic boundary that reflects970important interests as to fire prevention, and this Southwest971Ecological Restoration Institute will provide the research that972would allow us to prevent these devastating wildfires that973plague not only the West generally, but Utah specifically.974    We are looking forward to collaborating with partners to975improve forest management and wildfire prevention efforts, and976there is a long history of successful and innovative resource977management and planning programs in Utah that add value to978wildfire prevention and restoration efforts across the West.979    So, Mr. Chair, thank you for allowing this bill to be heard980in this Committee, and I look forward to the support of not981only my friends on one side of the aisle, but bipartisan-wise,982wildfires are not a partisan issue and I am grateful for the983opportunity to sponsor this problem-solving legislation that984can help us move forward.985    Thank you, Mr. Chair, and with that I yield back.986    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you, Representative Kennedy. We are987going to move on to our second panel now.988    Let me remind the witness that under Committee rules you989must limit your oral statement to 5 minutes, but your entire990statement will appear in the hearing record.991    To begin your testimony please press the on button.992    We use timing lights. When you begin the light will turn993green. At the end of 5 minutes the light will turn red, and we994will ask you to complete your statement. You are a veteran at995this.996    I would now like to introduce Mr. John Crockett, Deputy997Chief of State, Private, and Tribal Forestry at the United998States Forest Service.999    Deputy Chief Crockett, welcome, and you are recognized for10005 minutes.10011002STATEMENT OF JOHN CROCKETT, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STATE, PRIVATE, AND1003TRIBAL FORESTRY, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.10041005    Mr. Crockett. Good morning, and thank you, Chair Tiffany,1006Ranking Member Neguse, members of Committee. Thank you for the1007opportunity to appear before you today to speak about the four1008public land bills with Forest Service equities under1009consideration today. My name is John Crockett, and I have been1010a career employee with the U.S. Forest Service for over 281011years, and I currently serve as the Deputy Chief of State,1012Private, and Tribal Forestry, as well as the Acting Deputy1013Chief for the National Forest System.1014    The Forest Service manages over 193 million acres of1015Federal lands for a variety of uses that support sound1016management of lands held in other ownerships, works at the1017forefront of science to improve the health of our Nation's1018forests. And today I look forward to discussing a range of1019bills that touch on the agency's work. While our interest1020varies across the bills, our testimony expresses a willingness1021to work with the Committee on the ideas put forward.1022    H.R. 3187 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to convey a1023small parcel of Forest Service land on the Ouachita National1024Forest to Perry County, Arkansas. The Forest Service supports1025this conveyance and the local benefits it will generate, and1026looks forward to working with the Committee to ensure the1027parcel's prompt conveyance.1028    H.R. 1655, the Wildfire Communications Resiliency Act,1029would ensure the construction and repair of communication1030facilities following major disasters such as wildfires, and1031they are not subject to certain reviews under the National1032Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation1033Act. We support this bill and the goal to expedite approvals to1034rebuild communication infrastructure following natural1035disasters, and welcome the opportunity to share feedback on1036small technical matters.1037    H.R. 1045, the Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of10382025, would amend the Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire1039Prevention Act of 2004 to require the establishment of an1040additional Southwest Ecological Research Institute, or SWERI,1041in the State of Utah. The Forest Service supports this bill,1042this bill's goal to work closely with State universities on1043research that helps to address the challenges faced in the1044Great Basin and the Interior West.1045    H.R. 3444, the Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management1046in Forestry Act of 2025, would authorize the Secretary of1047Agriculture to enter into agreements with Indian Self-1048Determination and Education Assistance Act title 1 contracts1049with Indian Tribes, tribal organizations to perform certain1050activities, services, or functions, including management1051decisions on National Forest System lands that are1052historically, culturally, or geographically relevant to Tribes.1053The Forest Service supports shared stewardship with tribal1054nations, where overlapping interests with the National Forest1055System lands exist, including work to reduce wildfire risk,1056restore landscapes following natural disasters, and preserve1057cultural heritage.1058    We also strongly support the bill's proposed extension of1059the Federal Tort Claims Act to tribal employees carrying out1060activities under these contracts or agreements. However, there1061are components of the bill we hope to discuss further with the1062Committee.1063    First, we respectfully note that title 1 of the Indian1064Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act applies to1065programs that are operated for Tribes at the Bureau of Indian1066Affairs and Indian Health Services. The statues are not a1067funding vehicle. Rather, it transfers the administration of the1068qualifying programs that are operated to the benefit of the1069Tribe from the Federal agency to the Tribe. Since the Forest1070Service does not provide direct services to Tribes, we hope to1071discuss the compatibility of this statute with the agency's1072work.1073    Second, we hope to work with the Committee to further1074understand what is meant by the term ``management decisions''1075in order to ensure the language meets congressional intent.1076    And lastly, we hope to further discuss the potential of1077this bill's positioning the Forest Service as the arbiter of1078competing interests with Tribes within the same landscape, a1079role that could be difficult for the agency to fulfill.1080    This concludes my testimony, and thank you for the1081opportunity to share the Forest Service views, and I look1082forward to answering any questions.1083    [The prepared statement of Mr. Crockett follows:]1084 Prepared Statement of John Crockett, Deputy Chief, State, Private and1085                            Tribal Forestry10861087    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the1088Subcommittee, thank you for inviting the U.S. Department of Agriculture1089(USDA) Forest Service to provide testimony on four bills: H.R. 1045--1090``Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of 2025'', H.R. 1655--``Wildfire1091Communications Resiliency Act'', H.R. 3187--``To require the Secretary1092of Agriculture to convey a parcel of property of the Forest Service to1093Perry County, Arkansas, and for other purposes'', and H.R. 3444--1094``Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in Forestry Act of10952025.''1096H.R. 1045, Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of 20251097    H.R. 1045, the ``Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of 2025,''1098would amend the Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of10992004 to require the establishment of an additional research institute1100in the state of Utah. This would be in addition to three existing1101institutes in Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico that are collectively1102known as the Southwest Ecological Restoration Institutes (SWERIs).1103    The Forest Service understands the Committee's interest in pursuing1104additional research in the Great Basin and Interior West, including on1105the spread of invasive plants and associated fire danger, with the goal1106of increasing knowledge and dissemination of challenges and successes1107in regional forest and rangeland management.1108    While the Forest Service supports the goal of working closely with1109state universities to address challenges facing the Great Basin and1110Interior West, the FY 2026 Budget does not include resources to provide1111financial assistance to the SWERIs.1112H.R. 1655, Wildfire Communications Resiliency Act1113    H.R. 1655, the ``Wildfire Communications Resiliency Act,'' would1114provide that construction, rebuilding, or hardening of communications1115facilities following a major disaster or wildfire--related emergency1116are not subject to certain reviews under the National Environmental1117Policy Act and National Historic Preservation Act.1118    The Forest Service recognizes the serious impacts that utility1119interruptions have on the health and welfare of communities and1120individuals and prioritizes post-disaster restoration of communications1121and other critical services on National Forest System lands. The agency1122supports an expedited approval process for rebuilding communications1123facilities that have been damaged or destroyed by a major disaster or1124emergency event and supports the opportunity presented in H.R. 1655 to1125efficiently address facility repairs. Specifically, the Forest Service1126strongly supports the exclusion of communications facilities damaged by1127a wildfire disaster or emergency from being considered a ``major1128Federal action,'' and therefore not subject to requirements to prepare1129certain environmental reviews or be considered an undertaking under 541130U.S.C. 300320. We welcome further discussion with the Committee on some1131small technical concerns to ensure that the proposed legislation can1132accelerate agency efforts.1133H.R. 3187, To require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey a parcel1134        of property of the Forest Service to Perry County, Arkansas,1135        and for other purposes1136    H.R. 3187 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to convey a parcel1137of Forest Service land on the Ouachita National Forest to Perry County,1138Arkansas.1139    The Forest Service recognizes the potential local benefits this1140conveyance could provide and supports the conveyance of the Perryville1141office building and 0.81-acre parcel to Perry County. The Forest1142Service has engaged Perry County in direct sale conversations since11432022 and would like to work with the Committee to ensure the prompt1144conveyance of this parcel.1145H.R. 3444, Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in Forestry Act1146        of 20251147    H.R. 3444, the ``Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in1148Forestry Act of 2025,'' would direct the Secretary of the Interior to1149develop a Tribal Co-Management Plan for Bureaus within the Department1150and would require related training for staff. It would also authorize1151the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into agreements and contracts1152with Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations to perform certain1153activities, services, or functions, including management decisions, on1154National Forest System lands that are consistent with applicable land1155management plans and carried out on land that is historically,1156culturally, or geographically related to the relevant Tribe. Activities1157could include forest and grassland planning and management,1158restoration, recreational services, Forest Service Heritage Program1159activities, and research and development activities.1160    The Forest Service supports robust shared stewardship with Tribal1161Nations where overlapping interests exist. We work closely with Tribal1162Nations on forest management, wildfire mitigation, resource1163restoration, risk reduction, and cultural preservation efforts. We1164actively engage in shared stewardship through a dozen existing1165authorities, including the Tribal Forest Protection Act and Good1166Neighbor Authority.1167    We defer to the Department of the Interior on Sections 2 and 3 of1168the bill, which direct the development of a Tribal Co-Management Plan1169and related staff training for the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and1170Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs.1171    Section 4 authorizes the Forest Service to enter into agreements or1172Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act Title I1173contracts with Tribes and Tribal organizations to carry out activities,1174services, or functions--including permissive activities and management1175decisions--on Forest Service lands that are identified as historically,1176culturally, or geographically related to relevant Indian Tribes. The1177bill requires the Secretary to publish in the Federal Register, every1178three years, a non-exhaustive list of activities eligible for inclusion1179in those agreements, in consultation with Tribes. The bill sets forth1180time frames and factors that the Forest Service must consider before1181entering into the agreements, such as valid existing rights of other1182parties, and identifies special factors for consideration, such as1183Tribal citizen access and indigenous knowledge. The bill allows a Tribe1184to amend its agreement to undertake additional activities in response1185to a natural disaster. The bill also extends the Federal Tort Claims1186Act coverage to Tribes carrying out the agreements or contracts.1187    The Forest Service supports the inclusion of formal consultation,1188the incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge, and the extension of the1189Federal Tort Claims Act to Tribal employees carrying out activities1190under the agreements.1191    The Forest Service welcomes a discussion with the sponsors to1192address certain legal and implementation matters related to Section 41193to ensure that Congressional intent is effectuated. More clarity on1194which management decisions are eligible for contracting would be1195beneficial, particularly since the agreements must be consistent with1196federal law and non-delegation principles.1197    As the sponsors may know, Title I of the Indian Self-Determination1198and Education Assistance Act is not a funding vehicle, but rather a1199statutory mechanism that transfers Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian1200Health Service programs operated for Tribes over to Tribal control. We1201welcome a discussion on the applicability of that statute's terms for1202the Forest Service context and its interplay with the annual funding1203provisions from the Self-Governance Act in the bill. We also welcome a1204discussion concerning the Forest Service's authority to protect Tribal1205data sovereignty in order to carry out the goals contained in the bill.1206    Lastly, Section 4 of the bill requires that activities carried out1207on Forest Service land be historically, culturally, or geographically1208related to the Tribe without requiring a temporal nexus to the1209landscape. When there are overlapping Tribal interests with complicated1210histories over the same landscape this provision places the Forest1211Service in a position as arbiter of those interests. We welcome a1212discussion with the sponsors on this issue. We defer to the Department1213of the Interior if any portions of Section 4 that may affect its1214bureaus and agencies.1215Conclusion1216    That concludes the Forest Service's testimony. Thank you again1217Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the1218Subcommittee for the opportunity to present USDA's views on this1219proposed legislation.12201221                                 ______12221223    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Deputy Chief Crockett. I am now1224going to recognize members for 5 minutes of questioning, and we1225will start with the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber.1226    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Chairman Tiffany.1227    Deputy Chief Crockett, thank you for joining us today. Can1228you expand upon the challenges the Forest Service faces in1229conducting proper forest management after a wildfire or another1230disaster?1231    And how long does it typically take for the Forest Service1232to rebuild infrastructure on land that has been affected?1233    Mr. Crockett. So thank you for the question. How long does1234it take to rebuild infrastructure? It depends on the nature of1235the damage, the type of facility that was in place, and so I1236will give you a general bookmark of time frames. So on the1237minimum side, a couple of months if everything is pretty simple1238and everything works out with it.1239    On the other side of that bookend would be anywhere----1240    Mr. Stauber. Deputy Chief Crockett, when you say,1241``everything works out'', define ``works out.''1242    Mr. Crockett. Sure. So if it is----1243    Mr. Stauber. You know where I am going with that.1244    Mr. Crockett. Yes. So I am trying to basically give you the1245simplest answer on it because it is complicated.1246    So when I say, ``works out,'' if the alignment of the1247people capacity in the Forest Service is there, if the proposal1248itself is pretty straightforward, meaning there is not any back1249and forth that we need to do with the entity, so that is what I1250mean, if it works out.1251    Mr. Stauber. So if it doesn't work out, what is the longest1252time frame you have seen?1253    Mr. Crockett. We are required by the Mobile Now Act to have1254everything either approved or denied within 270 days. So that1255is the maximum extent of it.1256    Mr. Stauber. And during your career with the Forest1257Service, have these timelines increased or decreased to rebuild1258infrastructure after a wildfire?1259    Mr. Crockett. I would say they vary. There are some1260infrastructure facilities that we are able to expedite, and1261there are other ones that take an extended amount of time for1262some of the reasons that I just named.1263    Mr. Stauber. And before I yield my time to Chairman1264Tiffany, I just wanted to double check. I think I know this1265answer. Wildfires don't adhere to NEPA, do they?1266    Mr. Crockett. No, they don't.1267    Mr. Stauber. Deputy Chief Crockett, thanks for your1268testimony. I am going to yield the balance of my time to1269Chairman Tiffany.1270    Mr. Crockett. Thank you.1271    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you to the gentleman from Minnesota.1272    To the question that he was doing there you said it is1273complicated. Give us a little bit more about why this is1274complicated, that it takes so much time.1275    Mr. Crockett. Yes, so the complicating factors is depending1276on what level of staffing we have on hand to be able to accept1277the proposal and run it through our review process. So the1278people side of it, the complexity of the actual proposal1279itself, like I said earlier, if it is pretty straightforward,1280should be able to move forward without any delays. But if there1281are unforeseen matters that either the proposal didn't plan1282for, then that could adjust the time frames.1283    Mr. Tiffany. How could Congress help uncomplicate it?1284    Mr. Crockett. I think what you named around, because in1285your opening statement you mentioned that the analysis has been1286done already if a communication site is in place. And so why1287duplicate that effort of having to do the additional analysis?1288    As long as a check to make sure there is not a changed1289condition with it, I think the proposal that you put in place1290will help expedite the decision-making process.1291    Mr. Tiffany. More generally speaking, not just on this1292specific proposal by, I think we are referring to1293Representative Bentz, how could Congress help uncomplicate your1294work?1295    Mr. Crockett. So I would say timelines are definitely1296helpful. And if--obviously, it is our goal to expedite anything1297that comes in. But if we had timelines that we had to adhere1298to, that would be helpful. Obviously, having the right1299resources of staff capacity and funding.1300    Mr. Tiffany. So in other words, tightening timelines might1301be a good thing?1302    Mr. Crockett. Sure.1303    Mr. Tiffany. That is all the questions I have.1304Representative Stauber, do you have any? I will yield back to1305you. It is your time if you have any further follow-up.1306    Mr. Stauber. No, I think that if you had a structure on1307Forest Service land that you had to rebuild, same structure,1308same footprint, would you have to do a NEPA review?1309    Mr. Crockett. We would do I would say a proficiency check1310on it to make sure that there are not any changed conditions1311from when that facility was originally put in place to now. So1312that is what I would name----1313    Mr. Stauber. So no changes, no NEPA review?1314    Mr. Crockett. No changes, no additional analysis.1315    Mr. Stauber. Right. Like a categorical exclusion?1316    Mr. Crockett. So a CATEX on the small end, yes, we should1317be able to run it through, and get public comment and1318perspectives on it, and move it forward.1319    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Deputy Chief Crockett.1320    I yield back.1321    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now recognize the1322Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Neguse.1323    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1324    Thank you, Deputy Chief Crockett, for your testimony, for1325being here again before us. And I want to preface my comments1326and my questions with a statement, which is to say that I am1327very grateful for your service to the agency and to our1328country, and I hope you consider my questions in that light1329because I know you are a career official and doing your part to1330serve within the Forest Service. But as you can probably1331imagine, there are many of us here on the dais who have deep1332concerns about the political leadership of the Department of1333the Interior and the Forest Service and the Department of1334Agriculture. And as a result, given that you are----testifying1335in front of us today, I want to be sure that we have an1336opportunity to ask you some questions in that regard.1337    So my colleague, my Republican colleague, Mr. Tiffany,1338mentioned uncomplicating your work, I think, was the phrase1339that he used. And your response was something to the effect of1340having more resources for, you know, the folks on your team to1341do their jobs would be helpful. You are aware that President1342Trump has submitted his Fiscal Year 2026 skinny budget, and you1343have reviewed that. Is that fair?1344    Mr. Crockett. Yes, I am aware of it.1345    Mr. Neguse. OK. You are aware that his budget calls for the1346elimination of the State, Private, and Tribal Forestry branch1347of the United States Forest Service.1348    Mr. Crockett. Yes, I am aware of it.1349    Mr. Neguse. What is your title?1350    Mr. Crockett. I am the Deputy Chief for State, Private, and1351Tribal Forestry.1352    Mr. Neguse. So the President, President Trump, proposes to1353eliminate the branch of the Forest Service that you lead.1354    Mr. Crockett. That is correct.1355    Mr. Neguse. Yes. I think that it is patently unfair for the1356Trump administration to ask you to come testify in front of1357this Committee on behalf of a budget that eliminates the very1358branch of the agency that you lead. And I am not the only one1359who feels that way.1360    A variety of State leaders from across the country,1361Republicans and Democrats, have condemned the proposed cuts1362that this budget would make to wildfire programs, to the work1363that is being done by the hard-working people at the Forest1364Service, including in the branch that you lead, the hard-1365working civil servants who do their jobs every day. I know you1366are aware of this, Deputy Chief, but I think it is important1367for my colleagues to understand this, particularly those of us1368who serve on this Committee who also serve on the1369Appropriations Committee, because they are going to have a1370chance in the markups to potentially change this.1371    You are aware of the State and volunteer fire capacity1372programs in your division, of course.1373    Mr. Crockett. That is correct.1374    Mr. Neguse. You are aware that that is being eliminated by1375the Trump administration, proposed to be eliminated in the1376budget?1377    Mr. Crockett. I am aware of that, yes.1378    Mr. Neguse. You are familiar with the Forest Stewardship1379Program?1380    Mr. Crockett. Yes, sir, right.1381    Mr. Neguse. That is another program that President Trump1382has proposed to eliminate entirely.1383    Mr. Crockett. Yes.1384    Mr. Neguse. You are familiar with the Joint Fire Science1385Program?1386    Mr. Crockett. I am.1387    Mr. Neguse. This funds wildfire research in response to the1388needs of land managers in Nevada and Utah and Colorado and1389Idaho. You are aware of that?1390    Mr. Crockett. Yes.1391    Mr. Neguse. And you are aware that President Trump is1392proposing eliminating it?1393    Mr. Crockett. That is correct.1394    Mr. Neguse. OK. So Mr. Chairman, one way to uncomplicate1395the Deputy Chief's job may be to ask President Trump not to1396propose eliminating the sub-agency that he leads and all of the1397various fire programs that I just mentioned, the impacts of1398which, by the way, will be most pronounced in the States that1399are represented by the members on this Committee, including my1400own in Colorado. I don't think that is an unfair request, and I1401say this in good faith.1402    I mean, again, there are members of this Committee who1403serve on the Appropriations Committee. This is a live item. It1404is up for debate right now, right? House Republicans could1405reject some of these cuts and save these programs, they could1406save the division that you lead. We only need two or three.1407    I am very supportive of Utah's effort to expand the SWERIs1408programs, the institutes that exist in Fort Collins, and to add1409Utah to it. But Deputy Chief, you have said in your testimony1410here the Fiscal Year 2026 budget does not include resources to1411provide financial assistance to these institutes. Right?1412    Mr. Crockett. That is correct.1413    Mr. Neguse. So I am trying to understand. My colleagues1414from Utah are proposing to add an institute while1415simultaneously this Congress is going to defund all of the1416institutes.1417    And I guess what I would just ask of Mr. Kennedy because,1418again, I am very supportive, and I would just ask for your1419partnership. Let's get your legislation across the finish line,1420but let's also make sure that your institute and that1421Colorado's institute and Arizona's, that they are funded.1422Otherwise, what is the point of adding new institutes if we are1423going to defund them? That is my request, I should say.1424    And I yield back. Thank you for the Chairman's indulgence.1425    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now would like to1426recognize Ms. Maloy for her 5 minutes of questioning.1427    Ms. Maloy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1428    Mr. Crockett, thank you for being here. I only have a1429couple of questions for you, and they should be really easy.1430They are things you probably already know really well.1431    As my colleague mentioned, my colleague from Utah sitting1432here to my right has introduced a bill to create a wildfire1433research institute in Utah. There are three that already exist1434in the Four Corners area. Can you speak to the value of those1435wildfire research institutes to the Forest Service, and1436improving management practices, and especially any way that1437they have helped the Forest Service localize management1438practices and make them specific?1439    Mr. Crockett. Yes, so thank you for the question. And yes,1440we do value our relationships with the existing SWERIs, and1441know that the Utah SWERI would provide a benefit from the1442research perspective, particularly around collaboration and1443helping our land managers upstream of the fire risk do the1444analysis that is needed to determine how to mitigate that fire1445risk. And that happens at the local level within the existing1446SWERIs, and I would assume that same level of collaboration1447would happen with the Utah SWERI.1448    Ms. Maloy. Are there any examples where having local1449research from a SWERI has allowed Forest Service to improve1450management and localize it, instead of just having Federal,1451national, country-wide policies?1452    Mr. Crockett. I think the examples in both Colorado from1453the Ranking Member as well as in Arizona, where the research1454institutions work hand in hand with the local forest leaders,1455either the forest supervisors or forest fire managers, to get1456the localized perspective on the research that is happening and1457impacting that State or that forest. And I have seen examples1458on the ground firsthand, particularly around Flagstaff,1459Arizona, on where that has benefited the local forest.1460    Ms. Maloy. OK, thank you. I look forward to seeing that1461happening in Utah.1462    And Mr. Bentz's bill that speeds up rebuilding1463communications infrastructure after a wildfire, I am excited to1464see that in here. I represent a State that has wildfires and is1465majority of the land managed by the Federal Government. Can you1466talk about the challenges your agency faces in permitting1467rebuilding critical infrastructure, particularly utilities,1468after a wildfire?1469    Mr. Crockett. Yes, so some of those challenges I did name1470earlier, but what I would say is the bottom line for us is1471faster approval of permitting processes allows communication1472sites to get back up and be utilized for their intended1473purposes.1474    Ms. Maloy. I have also gone through this process before1475after wildfires in Utah, where we have utility infrastructure1476that has been damaged and we are just trying to rebuild it the1477same way, in the same path, and the process itself becomes a1478prohibition to getting things done. And I am excited that we1479are looking at ways to improve that and work together.1480    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.1481    Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady yields. I now recognize Ms.1482Leger Fernandez for 5 minutes.1483    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you1484so much for joining us here today.1485    I need to tell you my heart goes out to you. It really1486does, because you are trying to do your job knowing that there1487is a starvation budget that has been proposed by Trump that is1488yet to be opposed by the Republicans, which basically will make1489it impossible for you to do your job.1490    And, you know, Mr. Kennedy, I joined with my Ranking Member1491in welcoming a research center in Utah. We have one in New1492Mexico.1493    And, you know, Representative Maloy, you are absolutely1494right. These research centers are so key, especially as we try1495to recover from wildfires. We have a horrific wildfire in New1496Mexico. We have, luckily, a research center right in the middle1497of where that fire was, and so I welcome it. And I hope you do1498join us in supporting funding, because it doesn't do us any1499good to authorize something and then take away the funding for1500it.1501    There was a bipartisan letter on May 16, 2025. We did get1502some Republicans to support it. Hopefully you will, as well,1503because that called for robust funding for these facilities. So1504I know the letter already went out, and I know we asked the1505Utah delegation to join us, but hopefully you will because it1506doesn't do us any good to authorize these programs if we don't1507fund them.1508    You know, Deputy Chief Crockett, it takes boots on the1509ground to actually fight the fires and do the work you have1510been asked to do. Is that correct?1511    Mr. Crockett. That is correct.1512    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yes, it takes boots in the forest to1513actually manage those forests. Is that correct?1514    Mr. Crockett. That is correct.1515    Ms. Leger Fernandez. And it takes dollars to fund the1516people who wear those boots. Is that correct?1517    Mr. Crockett. That is correct.1518    Ms. Leger Fernandez. And, you know, I am looking at the1519testimony that you provided to this Committee, I think it was 21520years ago, approximately 2 years ago. And it is such a contrast1521with the testimony that you have provided today. Because if we1522look at that testimony, Tiffany was Chair. You came here1523telling us all the great work you were able to do. In fact, you1524pointed out that for the tribal programs that we are talking1525about today, you had testimony precisely about this kind of1526bill. Do you recall that testimony?1527    Mr. Crockett. I do recall that testimony.1528    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yes, and you pointed out that you were1529able to triple the number of agreements from 19.8 million to1530$68 million, right? What did it feel like to be able to do that1531kind of work, to get the money to actually do those kinds of1532agreements?1533    Mr. Crockett. It was exciting to work with the Tribes and1534see that they had not only the ability to do the work, but it1535was funded. So yes, that was exciting.1536    Ms. Leger Fernandez. So what are you going to do if the1537starvation budget is what actually gets passed into law when1538you have now potentially four institutes and no money? How will1539you decide, like, which child goes hungry?1540    Mr. Crockett. I don't know if I have an answer for you on1541that question, ma'am.1542    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Will you be able to fund the four1543institutes, if we become four institutes, with the money that1544is in the proposed budget?1545    Mr. Crockett. As it is currently proposed in the budget,1546the funding system that funds the institutes would be1547transferred to the Department of the Interior because it is our1548hazardous fuel budget line item that funds the institute, and1549the President's budget does propose moving that funding1550structure to the Department of the Interior.1551    Ms. Leger Fernandez. But there isn't enough money,1552regardless of where it is. There isn't enough money to do the1553research. There isn't enough money to actually carry out these1554programs. I think that is part of the problem.1555    I mean, in contrast to your testimony 2 years ago, where1556you were excited, talking about these new things that were1557happening, and I need to tell you. Coming from, you know, the1558rural district that I represent, and it has those beautiful1559lands that are in Utah, that are in Montana, that are in1560Colorado, that are in all of these Western States, in fact,1561many of these Western States are represented by Republicans,1562but they seem ready to cut off, you know, cut it off at the1563knees so those boots won't be on the ground to be able to1564conduct the work that they need to do. And I just don't know1565how we are going to do this. We are running out of time.1566    But I will point out that that earlier funding increases,1567they were bipartisan. It included the Bipartisan Infrastructure1568Law. And these bipartisan efforts are being defunded now at a1569rate that is alarming, given the wildfires that we are going to1570be seeing raging across the beautiful forests that I call home.1571    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.1572    Mr. Fulcher [presiding]. The gentlelady's time is expired.1573The Chair recognizes Mr. Kennedy for 5 minutes.1574    Dr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chair.1575    And Deputy Chief, thank you very much for being with us1576today. We appreciate your work on a daily basis, as well as you1577coming up here to visit with us.1578    So the SWERI institutes were created by Congress to support1579science-based forest restoration. How does the U.S. Forest1580Service coordinate with these institutes to align Federal1581forest management priorities with academic research and on-the-1582ground capacity?1583    Mr. Crockett. Yes, thank you for the question. And as I1584mentioned earlier, well, as an extension of what I mentioned1585earlier, research institutions are an extension of our ability1586to do work within the Forest Service. So obviously, we have a1587research wing within the agency, but the universities provide1588an extended perspective around wildfire research, one that we1589find valuable to the local resource.1590    Dr. Kennedy. Can you give me any examples of research that1591has been useful to you in your 28-year career? I think you said159228 years.1593    Mr. Crockett. Yes.1594    Dr. Kennedy. So over the years, what sort of research have1595the SWERI institutes given to the Forest Service that has1596helped you in doing the job that you do?1597    Mr. Crockett. Yes. So the SWERIs and the one in Arizona1598that I mentioned earlier, particularly around ponderosa pine, a1599species that is fire-dependent, they have provided research to1600help us better understand what management activities would look1601like to help reduce risk and severity from the ponderosa pine1602ecosystem.1603    Dr. Kennedy. And you did mention, I think earlier, that----1604permitting reform is an important part of something that would1605help the institutes help with policy formulation that would1606actually help us in Washington, D.C. help you do your job.1607    Mr. Crockett. I would say that the short answer is yes, but1608most of the work that they are doing is at the local level,1609helping those local managers make better decisions, which1610obviously helps us at the national level because they have1611policy in place that allows them to do their job better.1612    Dr. Kennedy. Thank you very much.1613    And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.1614    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.1615    So the commentary on the other side is complete, so I want1616to just take a minute here before we close, Mr. Crockett, and1617ask you, first of all, thank you for your testimony. And after1618this exchange, what goes through your mind that we missed that1619needs to be brought up?1620    I will focus on the solution side, but what have we missed?1621What do you recommend? Last-minute air time.1622    Mr. Crockett. Sure, thank you for the question and the1623opportunity to provide a perspective.1624    I think the Committee has named a dynamic tension between1625the authorizers and the appropriators, and I have a role in1626being in the middle of that, of having to make some tough1627decisions around our budget and our resources, and to fund or1628not to fund SWERIs, or to do the work or not to do the work.1629For me, I think that is the key point that has been named, that1630tension between the authorizers and the appropriators, and the1631differences in the branches of government between legislative1632and executive.1633    Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Crockett, thank you very much.1634    Mr. Crockett. Thank you.1635    Mr. Fulcher. OK. With that, if there are no further1636questions, we will now move on to our third panel.1637    I would like to thank the witness for his valuable1638testimony, and you are dismissed.1639    While the clerk resets our witness table, I will remind the1640witnesses that under Committee rules they must limit their oral1641statements to 5 minutes, but their entire statement will appear1642in the hearing record.1643    I would also like to remind our witnesses of the timing1644lights, which will turn red at the end of your 5-minute1645statement, and to please remember to turn on your microphone.1646    As with the second panel, I will allow all witnesses to1647testify before member questioning.1648    OK, first I would like to introduce The Honorable Larry1649Blackmon, Judge of Perry County, Arkansas.1650    Judge Blackmon, you are recognized for 5 minutes.16511652  STATEMENT OF THE HON. LARRY BLACKMON, JUDGE, PERRY COUNTY,1653                      PERRYVILLE, ARKANSAS16541655    Judge Blackmon. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Neguse, and1656members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to1657testify today. I appreciate the chance to speak in support of1658my Congressman representing French Hill's legislation, H.R.16593087, to require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey a1660parcel of property of the Forest Service in Perry County,1661Arkansas, and for other purposes.1662    Perry County is a small rural county located in central1663Arkansas with approximately 10,000 residents. Perry County is1664the fourth smallest county in Arkansas, and the third by total1665land area. Roughly 16 percent of the residents in Perry County1666live in poverty. The county is 77 percent forested, resulting1667in limited economic opportunities. As a result, we have limited1668budget to invest in our community, which means we must find1669ways to maximize the value of every dollar.1670    For years, Perry County has sought to purchase the U.S.1671Forest Service property located at 1069 Fourche Avenue in1672Perryville, Arkansas. Unfortunately, we have been unsuccessful1673in this effort. As mentioned earlier, Perry County has limited1674resources and a high poverty rate, and the Forest Service1675building in the small county has been unable to purchase it1676outright.1677    Trying to purchase the U.S. Forest Service building has1678been a lengthy process. After Perry County requested an1679appraisal, the U.S. Forest Service took over a year to complete1680the assessment of the building. During that year's time frame,1681the U.S. Forest Service had a new roof installed.1682Unfortunately, the roof soon began leaking due to faulty1683insulation by the contractor. Once Perry County received the1684appraisal value, we were no longer able to afford to purchase1685the building and make the necessary repairs to make it usable.1686    The necessary improvements for the U.S. Forest Service will1687include installing a new roof, repairing all the exterior wood1688facing that has been damaged by the leaking roof. The water1689damage from the leaking roof includes ceiling damage on the1690interior of the building, repairs to the trusses, and most of1691the flooring will need to be replaced. While the U.S. Forest1692Service building will require repairs and updates, the county1693does have funding to make the necessary substantial repairs1694from the water damage. However, Perry County cannot make these1695improvements and purchase the building outright.1696    Once Perry County restores the U.S. Forest Service1697building, it will support key programs. Specifically, the1698building will house local organizations currently struggling1699with limited space and inadequate resources which restrained1700them from serving the community effectively. If Perry County is1701able to acquire the Forest Service Building, we can move the1702County Extension Office, Conservation Office, and 4-H into the1703building. Currently, none of these organizations have1704sufficient space to conduct the necessary activities to fully1705serve the people of Perry County.1706    In addition, these organizations do not have access to1707meeting rooms or kitchen facilities for cooking classes, which1708includes classes about healthy eating habits. One of the most1709significant benefits to Perry County is that the 4-H would have1710a permanent home. Currently, 4-H is forced to meet wherever1711they can find a suitable location.1712    Local support for Perry County acquiring this building is1713strong, which includes but is not limited to the City of1714Perryville, Perryville Mayor John Rowland, the Perry County1715Chamber of Commerce, Perry County Fair Association, State1716Representative Mary Bentley, and State Senator Terry Rice.1717    In conclusion, H.R. 3187 will help Perry County create1718lasting benefits for our community. H.R. 3187 will enable1719numerous organizations to serve Perry County in a greater1720capacity than they currently can due to a lack of office space,1721meeting rooms, and storage areas for equipment that they need1722to assist the citizens of Perry County.1723    Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be happy1724to answer any questions you or the other members may have.1725Thank you.1726    [The prepared statement of Judge Blackmon follows:]1727               Prepared Statement of Judge Larry Blackmon17281729    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the1730subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I1731appreciate the chance to speak in support of my Congressman, Rep.1732French Hill's legislation, H.R. H.R. 3187, To require the Secretary of1733Agriculture to convey a parcel of property of the Forest Service to1734Perry County, Arkansas, and for other purposes.1735    Perry County is a small, rural county located in central Arkansas,1736with approximately 10,000 residents. Perry County is the fourth1737smallest county in Arkansas and the third-smallest by total land area.1738Roughly 16 percent of residents in Perry County live in poverty. The1739county is 77 percent forested, resulting in limited economic1740opportunities. As a result, we have a limited budget to invest in our1741community, which means we must find ways to maximize the value of eve1y1742dollar.1743    For years, Perry County has sought to purchase the U.S. Forest1744Service property located at 1069 Fourche Avenue in Perryville,1745Arkansas. Unfortunately, we have been unsuccessful in this effort. As1746mentioned earlier, Perry County has limited resources and a high1747poverty rate, and the small county has been unable to purchase it1748outright. Trying to purchase the U.S. Forest Service building has been1749a lengthy process. After Perry County requested an appraisal, the U.S.1750Forest Service took over a year to complete the assessment of the1751building. During that year's timeframe, the U.S. Forest Service had a1752new roof installed. Unfortunately, the roof soon began leaking due to1753faulty installation of the new roof by a contractor. Once Perry County1754received the appraisal value, we could no longer afford to purchase the1755U.S. Forest Service building and make the necessary repairs to make it1756usable.1757    The necessary improvements for the U.S. Forest Service Building1758include installing a new roof and repairing all the exterior wood1759facing that has been damaged by the leaking roof. The water damage from1760the leaking roof includes ceiling damage on the interior of the1761building, repairs to the trusses, and most of the flooring will need to1762be replaced. While the U.S. Forest Service building will require1763repairs and updates, our county does have the funding to make the1764necessary substantial repairs from the water damage. However, Perry1765County cannot make these improvements in addition to purchasing the1766U.S. Forest Service building outright.1767    Once Perry County restores the U.S. Forest Service building, it1768will support key programs. Specifically, the building will house local1769organizations currently struggling with limited space and inadequate1770resources, which restrain them from serving the community effectively.1771If Perry County is able to acquire the U.S. Forest Service building, we1772can move the county Extension Office, Conservation Office, and 4H into1773the building. Currently, none of these organizations has sufficient1774space to conduct the necessary activities to fully serve the people of1775Perry County. In addition, these organizations do not have access to1776meeting rooms or kitchen facilities for cooking classes, including1777classes about healthy eating habits. One of the most significant1778benefits to Perry County is that 4H would have a permanent home.1779Currently, 4H is forced to meet wherever they can find a suitable1780location.1781    Local support for Perry County acquiring this building is strong,1782which includes, but is not limited to, the City of Perryville,1783Perryville Mayor John Roland, the Perry County Chamber of Commerce, the1784Perry County Fair Association, State Representative Mary Bentley, and1785State Senator Terry Rice.1786    In conclusion, H.R. 3187 will help Perry County and create lasting1787benefits for our community. H.R. 3187 will enable numerous1788organizations to serve Perry County in a greater capacity than they1789currently can due to a lack of office space, meeting rooms, and storage1790areas for equipment needed to assist the citizens of Perry County.1791    Chairman Tiffany, that concludes my testimony. I would be happy to1792answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.17931794                                 ______17951796    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Judge Blackmon. I now recognize the1797gentleman from Utah, Mr. Kennedy, for 1 minute to introduce our1798next witness.1799    Dr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chair Pro Tem. I am grateful to1800be here to talk more about my Utah Wildfire Research Institute1801Act of 2025 and to introduce Dr. Yocom, who is the director of1802the Utah Forest Restoration Institute and an Associate1803Professor in the Wildland Resources Department at Utah State1804University.1805    Dr. Yocom has contributed to numerous peer-reviewed journal1806articles on wildfire and forest management, and has been1807invited across Utah and the country, as well as the world, to1808give presentations on her work. As a subject matter expert, she1809currently serves on the board of the Southern Rockies Fire1810Science Network, a committee member of the Association for Fire1811Ecology Education Committee, and an advisory committee member1812for the Great Basin Fire Science Exchange.1813    I thank Dr. Yocom for joining us here today, and I look1814forward to your testimony later.1815    Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back.1816    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. I now recognize Ms.1817Larissa Yocom, Director of the Utah Forest Restoration1818Institute. Ms. Yocom, you have 5 minutes.18191820 STATEMENT OF LARISSA YOCOM, DIRECTOR, UTAH FOREST RESTORATION1821                     INSTITUTE, LOGAN, UTAH18221823    Dr. Yocom. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I am1824Larissa Yocom, the Director of the Utah Forest Restoration1825Institute and an Associate Professor of Forest Fire Ecology and1826Management at Utah State University. I am excited about the1827opportunity to discuss the Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act1828of 2025, a bill introduced by Representative Kennedy, with a1829companion bill, S. 457, introduced by Senator Lee.1830    This bill would amend the Southwest Forest Health and1831Wildfire Prevention Act of 2004 to require the establishment of1832an additional Southwest Ecological Restoration Institute under1833the Act in the State of Utah. Currently, three institutes exist1834in Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado.1835    Fire plays an essential role in keeping diverse Western1836forests healthy and has wide-ranging benefits. For example,1837aspen trees thrive after fire, and wildlife often seek out1838recently burned areas. However, early settlers viewed fire as a1839destructive force that resulted in the waste of valuable1840timber. For decades forest managers were remarkably successful1841in preventing and suppressing fire, while communities expanded1842into fire-prone areas. About 25 years ago, large and1843destructive megafires started to become a regular occurrence.1844At present we are experiencing more destructive fire, spending1845more resources on fighting fire, and dealing with other1846cascading effects such as fire-induced damage to water supplies1847and rising homeowner insurance costs. Everyone is looking for1848answers.1849    How can we better manage our forests, keep communities1850safe, and reduce the risks for millions of Americans who depend1851on forests for services such as timber, clean air, recreation,1852hunting, grazing, and water supply?1853    In 2004 Congress created the Southwest Ecological1854Restoration Institutes, or SWERI, to serve as the critical1855connector of science and practice to restore forest health and1856reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. Hosted at1857universities to stay on the cutting edge of research, the SWERI1858work side by side with managers, policymakers, and communities1859to ensure that locally relevant science and technology reaches1860the people who need it most. The SWERI have worked for 20 years1861to demonstrate that adaptive and active management is an1862effective tool for improving outcomes.1863    Although there is still plenty of work to do, we have1864learned a great deal in the last two decades about how to1865reduce fuels through mechanical thinning of trees and1866prescribed fire, as well as developed science-based fire1867response strategies that are safer and more effective. We have1868learned more about how to engage residents to garner support1869for active forest management. We have learned about how to1870support collaboration across boundaries so that important fire1871prevention work does not get hung up in the courts. We have1872learned about how to manage areas that have recently burned to1873restore vegetation and prevent erosion into waterways.1874    Much of this learning has been developed and applied on the1875ground under the leadership of the SWERI, through their place-1876based monitoring and timely and nimble production of actionable1877ecological and social science. The work of the SWERI is so1878distinct and impactful that Utah wants a SWERI of their own. In18792024 the Utah State Legislature authorized the formation of an1880institute housed at Utah State University, provided start-up1881funding, and named it the Utah Forest Restoration Institute. I1882was named the Director in January of this year.1883    Initial responses in Utah to the formation of the institute1884have been universally positive from partners including the1885State of Utah, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest1886Service, the Department of the Interior Bureau of Land1887Management, tribal representatives, non-profits, and policy-1888makers.1889    Everyone acknowledges that we have a fire problem, and we1890need focused attention on solutions. Utah's mix of forests and1891woodlands are unique. We will have different fire patterns from1892our neighboring States, and our solutions will need to be1893unique, too. Frankly, we are behind many of our neighbors in1894determining which management tools work best for Utah's forests1895and woodlands, and how to engage residents and decision-makers.1896Establishing a SWERI in Utah is critical to help us get ahead1897of the curve before it is too late. The benefits of1898establishing a SWERI in Utah include healthier forests, safer1899communities, a stronger workforce, and a more informed public.1900    We have been collaborating closely with the other SWERI to1901ensure that we are additive and complementary to the SWERI1902program, and will enhance their work across the Intermountain1903West. Federal designation of a SWERI in Utah will need to be1904followed by sufficient appropriations for the new Utah1905Institute and sustained appropriations for the existing SWERI.1906Sustained Federal funding allows the SWERI to reliably and1907swiftly respond to the substantial and increasing need for1908science-based solutions, for reducing the risk of catastrophic1909wildfire, and sustaining the health and vitality of our forests1910in the Intermountain West, in alignment with the broader intent1911of the Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of19122004.1913    Thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee.1914I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.1915    [The prepared statement of Dr. Yocom follows:]1916Prepared Statement of Larissa Yocom, Director, Utah Forest Restoration1917Institute & Associate Professor, Department of Wildland Resources, Utah1918                            State University19191920    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and all members of the1921Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I am1922Larissa Yocom, the Director of the Utah Forest Restoration Institute1923and an Associate Professor of Forest Fire Ecology & Management at Utah1924State University. I am excited about the opportunity to discuss the1925``Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of 2025'' bill, introduced by1926Representative Kennedy with a companion bill S. 457 introduced by1927Senator Lee. This bill would amend the Southwest Forest Health and1928Wildfire Prevention Act of 2004 to require the establishment of an1929additional Southwest Ecological Restoration Institute under the Act in1930the state of Utah. Currently three institutes exist in Arizona, New1931Mexico, and Colorado. Passing this bill into law is an important1932initial step to benefit the people of Utah, as well as our neighboring1933states, by adding to an existing program with proven results1934accelerating science-based forest management and reducing wildfire1935risk.1936    Fire plays an essential ecological role in keeping diverse Western1937forests healthy and has wide--ranging benefits. For example, aspen1938trees thrive after fire, and wildlife often seek out recently burned1939areas. However, early settlers viewed fire as a destructive force that1940resulted in the waste of valuable timber. For decades, forest managers1941were remarkably successful in preventing and suppressing fire, while1942communities expanded into fire-prone areas. Then, about twenty-five1943years ago, large and destructive megafires suddenly started to become a1944regular occurrence. At present, we are experiencing more destructive1945fire, spending more resources on fighting fire, and dealing with other1946cascading effects such as fire-induced damage to water supplies and1947rising homeowner insurance costs. Everyone is looking for answers. How1948can we better manage our forests, keep communities safe, and reduce the1949risks for millions of Americans who depend on forests for services such1950as timber, clean air, recreation, hunting, grazing, and water supply?1951    In 2004 Congress created the Southwest Ecological Restoration1952Institutes, or SWERI, to serve as the critical connector of science and1953practice to restore forest health and reduce the risk of catastrophic1954wildfire. Hosted at universities to stay on the cutting edge of1955research, the SWERI work side by side with managers, policymakers, and1956communities to ensure that locally relevant science and technology1957reaches the people who need it most. The SWERI have worked for 20 years1958to demonstrate that adaptive and active management is an effective tool1959for improving outcomes. Although there is still plenty of work to do,1960we have learned a great deal in the last two decades about how to1961reduce fuels through mechanical thinning of trees and prescribed fire,1962as well as developed science-based fire response strategies that are1963safer and more effective. We have learned more about how to engage1964residents to garner support for active forest management. We have1965learned about how to support collaboration across boundaries, so that1966important fire prevention work does not get hung up in the courts. We1967have learned about how to manage areas that have recently burned, to1968restore vegetation and prevent erosion into waterways. Much of this1969learning has been developed and applied on the ground under the1970leadership of the SWERI, through their place-based monitoring and1971timely and nimble production of actionable ecological and social1972science.1973    The work of the SWERI is so distinct and impactful that Utah wants1974a SWERI of their own. In 2024, the Utah state legislature authorized1975the formation of an institute housed at Utah State University, provided1976start-up funding, and named it the Utah Forest Restoration Institute. I1977was named the Director in January of this year. Initial responses in1978Utah to the formation of the institute have been universally positive,1979from partners including the state of Utah, the U.S. Department of1980Agriculture Forest Service, the Department of Interior Bureau of Land1981Management, tribal representatives, non-profits, and policymakers.1982Everyone acknowledges that we have a fire and forest resilience1983problem, and we need focused attention on solutions. Utah's mix of1984forest and woodlands are unique. We have different fire patterns from1985our neighboring states and our solutions will need to be unique too.1986Frankly, we are behind many of our neighbors in determining which1987management tools work best for Utah's forests and woodlands, and how to1988engage residents and decision makers. Establishing a SWERI in Utah is1989critical to help us get ahead of the curve before it is too late.1990    The benefits of establishing a SWERI in Utah include healthier1991forests, safer communities, a stronger workforce, and a more informed1992public. We have been collaborating closely with the other SWERI to1993ensure that we are additive and complementary to the SWERI program and1994will enhance their work across the Intermountain West. Federal1995designation of a SWERI in Utah will need to be followed by sufficient1996appropriations for the new Utah institute and sustained appropriations1997for the existing SWERI. Sustained federal funding allows the SWERI to1998reliably and swiftly respond to the substantial and increasing need for1999science-based solutions for reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire2000and sustaining the health and vitality of our forests in the2001Intermountain West, in alignment with the broader intent of the2002Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of 2004.2003    Thank you for the opportunity to address this Subcommittee. I would2004be happy to answer any questions you may have.20052006                                 ______20072008    Mr. Tiffany [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Yocom. I now2009recognize Mr. Bill Tripp, Director of Natural Resources and2010Environmental Policy for the Karuk Tribe Department of Natural2011Resources.2012    Mr. Tripp, welcome back. You have 5 minutes.20132014  STATEMENT OF BILL TRIPP, DIRECTOR OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND2015    ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, KARUK TRIBE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL2016                 RESOURCES, ORLEANS, CALIFORNIA20172018    Mr. Tripp. [Speaking Native language.] My name is Bill2019Tripp, and I am the Director of Natural Resources and2020Environmental Policy for the Karuk Tribe, located along the2021Klamath River in far northern California.2022    Ninety-eight percent of Karuk original territory is2023collocated with National Forest System lands. I have been2024working in the field of natural resources and environmental2025policy for 32 years. I offer this testimony in my capacity as2026the Karuk tribal delegate to the Intertribal Timber Council,2027and more specifically, my role as Chair of the ITC Fire2028Subcommittee. I have been asked to speak to the Tribal Self-2029Determination and Co-Management in Forestry Act.2030    As with any such topic, there is nuance to be addressed and2031a duty of care to be observed to avoid harm, such as a2032potential diminishment of tribal sovereignty or perceived2033extinguishments of any reserved, retained, or other tribal2034rights. Given this, I will convey why it is so important that2035we get this right.2036    I have been using fire for traditional and cultural2037purposes since I was 4 years old. My great-grandmother gave me2038a task. And when I saw the inherent problems and accomplished2039it as instructed, she agreed to tell me our stories of2040creation. These stories speak to our relationship to the2041natural world, and our responsibility to do the things inherent2042to Karuk culture. One of these things is our world renewal2043ceremonies on Offield Mountain.2044    Following the big burn of 1910, as the Weeks Act was being2045discussed in Congress, the Western governors conditioned their2046support with a call for an authority for governments to2047coordinate in regard to carrying out wildland fire management2048programs. Meanwhile, in Karuk territory, the ceremonial burning2049of Offield Mountain happened for the last time due to the2050results of this suppression mindset.2051    In recent years the State of California has passed a suite2052of laws that accommodate and enable Indigenous fire use as2053something that is conducted under the inherent sovereign2054authority of Indian Tribes. The same authority founded in the2055Weeks Act and that was originally used to stamp out our2056Indigenous fire use practices can and should be used to enable2057Federal deference to such laws at the State and tribal level.2058This is where the agreement structure offered in the Tribal Co-2059Management and Self-Determination in Forestry Act becomes key2060to its success.2061    Both this bill and the FOREST Act, if done well, would2062solidify existing opportunities, reinforce congressional2063intent, clarify the fact that Forest Service should be sharing2064decision-making authority more broadly, and provide specific2065connections to the Indian Self-Determination and Education2066Assistance Act to promote efficient program delivery while2067respecting and preserving tribal sovereignty. But all too2068often, agencies and bureaus are reluctant to share management2069and decision-making with Tribes based on their own narrow2070readings of statutory authority.2071    Federal officials regularly rely on oversimplified2072interpretation, and avoid engaging in co-creating new models of2073shared management. An example of this is explicit in the Indian2074Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, where Congress2075found that the parental and community control of the2076educational process is of crucial importance to Indian people.2077The ceremonial burning of Offield Mountain is supposed to be2078burned by 3 young men that might not even be 18 years old, but2079already have a career's worth of burning under their belt2080through our Indigenous education systems. The Federal agencies2081demand, however, that the National Wildfire Coordinating Group2082training standards are followed before a person can burn.2083    It is critical that legislation does not extinguish unceded2084rights of Indian people and acknowledge tribal sovereign2085authority over inherent tribal activities.2086    Some Tribes are interested in taking over implementation of2087Federal program services, functions, and activities. Other2088Tribes are most interested in the exercise of their Indigenous2089knowledge, practices, and belief systems without burdensome2090process. We at the Karuk Tribe are pursuing a combination of2091the two.2092    In closing, I thank you all for inviting me to testify here2093today. I look forward to working to help ensure this dialog2094progresses in an appropriate way that fosters bipartisan2095support and enables proactive stewardship that truly moves the2096needle in addressing the wildfire crisis.2097    [Speaking Native language.] Thank you.2098    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tripp follows:]2099 Prepared Statement of Bill Tripp on the Tribal Self Determination and2100  Co-Management in Forestry Act of 2025 House Subcommittee on Federal2101                                 Lands2102    Ayukii--My name is Bill Tripp and I am the Director of Natural2103Resources and Environmental Policy for the Karuk Tribe's Department of2104Natural Resources. The Karuk Tribe is located along the Klamath River2105in far Northern California and our Aboriginal Territory is over a2106million acres, which stretch into Oregon. 98% of Karuk Aboriginal2107Territory is co-located with National Forest System lands. I have been2108working in the field of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy for210932 years, and using fire as a management tool for the last 47 years. I2110now serve as the Intertribal Timber Council (ITC) Fire Subcommittee2111Chair, the ITC principal to the Wildland Fire Leadership Council (WFLC)2112leadership team for the WFLC Western Region, and was the Tribal2113Government Representative appointed to the bipartisan Wildland Fire2114Mitigation and Management Commission. I offer this testimony in my2115capacity as the Karuk Tribal delegate to the Intertribal Timber Council2116(ITC) and more specifically my role as Chair of the ITC Fire2117Subcommittee.2118    I have been asked to speak to the Tribal Self Determination and Co-2119Management in Forestry Act, introduced by Rep. Jared Huffman, who2120represents part of the Aboriginal Territory of the Karuk Tribe. This2121bill is based on the unanimous recommendations (number 29 and 30) of2122the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission,\1\ which urged2123Congress to provide the Forest Service with authority to enter into2124agreements to share or transfer decision-making authority with a Tribe2125or defer to the decisionmaking authority of a Tribe. Specifically, this2126bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into agreements2127with Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations for the performance of2128certain activities of the Forest Service. It also recognizes the2129authority to the Forest Services to defer to Tribal decisions in their2130exercise of reserved, retained, and other similar rights. I would urge2131this Committee to take a bipartisan approach to this topic, as there2132has also been a related and complementary bill (Fostering Opportunities2133to Restore Ecosystems using Sound Tribal Stewardship Act, or the2134FORESTS Act, sponsored by Rep. Hurd). I know there is great interest on2135both sides of the aisle in working to overcome some of the adversity2136Tribes have faced in our tribal homelands for generations, while we2137enable proactive stewardship, restore sense of purpose in our tribal2138communities, and protect homes, lives and the environment from2139catastrophic wildfire.2140---------------------------------------------------------------------------2141    \1\ On Fire: A Report of the Wildland Fire Mitigation and2142Management Commission (September 2023), Recommendation 30.2143---------------------------------------------------------------------------2144    As with any such topic, there is nuance to be addressed and a duty2145of care to be observed to avoid harm, such as a potential diminishment2146of tribal sovereignty or perceived extinguishment of any reserved,2147retained, or other Tribal rights.\2\ Given this, I will convey why it2148is so important that we get this right, provide some historical2149context, call out some specific distinctions critical to success, and2150offer help in working to refine this and other bills aimed at enabling2151tribal co-management of federal lands moving forward.2152---------------------------------------------------------------------------2153    \2\ Additional information on these topics can be found in Good2154Fire II, available here: https://2155karuktribeclimatechangeprojects.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/215603/good-fire-ii-march-2024.pdf.2157---------------------------------------------------------------------------2158    I have been using fire for traditional and cultural uses and2159purposes since I was 4 years old. I built a fire in the woodstove one2160morning so it would be warm when my great grandma woke up. When she2161heard me, she came out and told me if I was going to be playing with2162fire, I was going to do something good with it. At that point, she (my2163great grandmother) took me outside, gave me a task and went back2164inside. When I solved its inherent problems and accomplished it as2165instructed, she agreed to tell me the Arrarrahi ipikyav, or our stories2166of creation. These stories speak to our relationship to the natural2167world, and our responsibility to do the things inherent to Karuk2168culture. One of these things is our World Renewal Ceremonies, part of2169which take place on Offield Mountain. By the time I was 8 years old I2170had completed all the lessons. She asked me: now that you have been2171given this knowledge, what are you going to do with it? I responded in2172saying that I was going to use my life to help bring fire back to the2173people, as that would be the one thing that we would have to do if we2174were to live in a survivable homeland in the future.2175    Following the Big Burn of 1910, as the Weeks Act was being2176discussed in Congress, the Western Governors conditioned their support2177of the bill with a call for the authority for state and federal2178governments to coordinate in regard to carrying out Wildland Fire2179Management Programs. The Federal and State governments retained their2180distinctions as constitutional government entities in doing so, but2181disregarded the sovereignty and rights of Tribes. As a result of Tribes2182not being at the table, the misguided singular focus on suppression2183spread across both the state and federal land management agencies.2184Meanwhile, in Karuk territory, the ceremonial burning of Offield2185mountain happened for the last time due to results of this suppression2186mindset. I have spent the last 32 years of my life trying to build2187relationships so we can restore conditions conducive of revitalizing2188this essential ceremonial burning practice. In addition to having2189direct impacts on our religious freedoms and ability to practice our2190ceremony, the importance of enabling cultural burning cannot be2191overstated. There is currently no plan for maintaining all of the acres2192that we are diligently working with our federal partners to restore,2193and cultural burning is the answer. It is the only way we can2194sustainably and reliably make our landscapes safer in the face of2195wildfire, and prevent the loss of lives, property, and timber resources2196among other things.2197    In recent years, in an attempt to address the ``wildfire problem,''2198the State of California has passed a suite of laws that accommodate and2199enable Indigenous fire use as something that is conducted under the2200inherent sovereign authority of Indian Tribes.\3\ These laws give2201deference to Tribal law in the conduct of inherently tribal activities2202such as cultural burning. It would be game-changing to see similar2203authorities at the federal level. In fact, the same authority founded2204in the Weeks Act that was originally used to stamp out our Indigenous2205fire use practices, can and should be used to enable federal deference2206to such laws at the state and Tribal level. This is where the agreement2207structure offered in the Tribal Co-Management and Self Determination in2208Forestry Act becomes a key to its success. The authority for the Forest2209Service to enter into an agreement that recognizes the differences2210between federal actions and those inherently tribal is paramount to our2211ability to revitalize our cultural identity.2212---------------------------------------------------------------------------2213    \3\ Senate Bill 310, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/2214billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=202320240SB310.2215---------------------------------------------------------------------------2216    It is clear to me that Congress needs to lead on this issue. Recent2217Forest Service testimony on the FORESTS Act,\4\ made clear to me that2218the agency does not understand at all levels that they can and should2219be working with Tribes in ways unique to their specific situations.2220They do not seem to understand what kinds of new authorities are needed2221to make it all work. From my experience, the agreement templates used2222by the Forest Service are not structured in a manner conducive of a2223government-to-government relationship, but it should not be difficult2224to make the appropriate adjustments if properly approached. Conversely,2225it is important to realize that we have come a long way in our2226relationship building efforts, and it will be difficult to keep up the2227pace, let alone increase the scale of our proactive management impact2228moving forward with continued budget and capacity cuts. Efficiencies2229are better gained with directional focus that when carried out under an2230umbrella of fear and confusion.2231---------------------------------------------------------------------------2232    \4\ https://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/2233eventsingle.aspx?EventID=417109.2234---------------------------------------------------------------------------2235    Both this bill and the FORESTS Act,\5\ if done well, would solidify2236existing opportunities, reinforce Congressional intent, clarify the2237fact that the Forest Service should be sharing decisionmaking authority2238more broadly, and provide specific connections to the Indian Self-2239Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) to promote2240efficient program delivery while respecting and preserving Tribal2241Sovereignty. As successful as our co-stewardship partnerships have been2242in regard to progressing the Forest Service management responsibility2243in our Karuk homelands, more efficient means are possible with2244consistent and reliable funding mechanisms like self-governance2245compacting.2246---------------------------------------------------------------------------2247    \5\ https://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/2248eventsingle.aspx?EventID=417109.2249---------------------------------------------------------------------------2250    More than two decades ago, the USDA Forest Service recognized that2251the ISDEAA was indeed a government-wide mandate, but believed that2252there were no authorities specific to the Forest Service to enable2253adequate implementation by the agency. This bill's inclusion of2254additional 638 mechanisms is another key component. But all too often2255agencies and bureaus are reluctant to share management and decision-2256making with Tribes based on their own narrow readings of statutory2257authority as well as overblown concerns with the sub-delegation2258doctrine and what constitutes an ``inherently federal function.'' While2259those legal doctrines occasionally present legitimate considerations,2260federal officials regularly rely on them as an over-simplified and ill-2261considered interpretation and avoid engaging and co-creating new models2262of shared management. Congress needs to push the agencies to do better.2263    An example of this is explicit in ISDEAA,\6\ where Congress found2264that parental and community control of the educational process is of2265crucial importance to the Indian people, and that Tribes will never2266give up this right. For my Tribe, education is not just what is taught2267in the classroom, but in the intergenerational transfer of knowledge2268about our management systems and the places where we are from. Much of2269Karuk Aboriginal Territory now falls within the jurisdiction of both2270the Forest Service and the Tribe, including a sacred mountain called2271Offield Mountain. The ceremonial burning of Offield Mountain or2272Ikxariyatuuyship, meaning the spirit people's mountain, is supposed to2273be burned by three young men that might not even be 18 years old, but2274already have a careers' worth of burning under their belt through our2275Indigenous education systems. Because of Forest Service policies, I2276have been denied this part of my Indigenous education, but it is still2277my inherent responsibility to ensure others are not.2278---------------------------------------------------------------------------2279    \6\ 46 U.S.C. Sec.  5301(b)(3).2280---------------------------------------------------------------------------2281    The federal agencies demand, however, that National Wildfire2282Coordinating Group training standards are followed before a person can2283be part of any burning on federally administered lands, meaning that2284their experiential learning cannot even begin until they are at least228518 years old. This constitutes an extinguishment of our right to2286religious freedoms and is in direct conflict with the findings in2287ISDEAA. Conversely, an Agency cannot extinguish a right, nor can a2288State. It is critical that legislation involving co-management or co-2289decision-making does not extinguish the unceded rights of Indian2290people, and acknowledges pathways whereby Agencies can defer to tribal2291sovereign authority over inherently tribal activities. This bill2292reinforces this in communicating the premise that the Forest Service2293can already accommodate and enable our access to conduct our Indigenous2294fire use practices either as part of, or completely separate from the2295delivery of federal programs.2296    Any effective co-management legislation must recognize that Tribes2297are asking to undertake at least two different kinds of activities on2298lands administered by federal agencies. Some Tribes are interested in2299taking over the implementation of federal programs, services,2300functions, and activities. In doing so, they will generally follow2301federal policies (such as the National Wildfire Coordinating Group2302qualifications), but also have access to federal benefits (such as tort2303coverage and federal dollars). But other Tribes are most interested in2304mechanisms whereby the federal government can accommodate the exercise2305of their Indigenous knowledge, practice, and belief systems without2306burdensome processes. Cultural burning is one of these practices: it2307should not be assumed to be prescribed fire, or required to be2308completed in the context of federal program delivery. We at the Karuk2309Tribe are pursuing a complementary combination of the two, and view2310this bill as an important means for enabling this.2311    These two different pathways require two different approaches.2312Congress should efficiently permit and resource Tribes in undertaking2313federal programs, services, functions, or activities. And Congress2314should also empower what should be considered ``inherently tribal''2315activities as well. It also matters whether components involve the2316significant use of federal funds and are therefore required to be2317included in an approved land management plan. Who we are and the2318ceremonial practices of individual Indian people are not required2319components of such a plan, but perhaps should rather be analyzed as the2320related actions of a separate sovereign when included in federal land2321management planning activities.2322    In closing, I thank you all for inviting me to testify here today.2323I look forward to working with your staff as requested to help ensure2324this dialogue progresses in an appropriate way that fosters bipartisan2325support, and enables proactive stewardship that truly moves the needle2326in addressing the wildfire crisis. Getting this done right for the2327long-term is more important than getting this done quickly. I hope each2328and every one of you work to progress this dialogue in the states you2329represent so we can utilize the strengths of federal, state, and tribal2330sovereignty in a way that does not constitute an extinguishment of our2331rights. The very term ``Indigenous'' means ``natural to place'', and in2332gaining a mutual understanding of what that can and should mean to us2333all, I look forward to preserving our indigeneity while finding lasting2334solutions to the wildfire problem.2335    Yootva (thank you).23362337                                 ______23382339    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Tripp. I now recognize Mr. Greg2340Andreas, General Manager at Ponderosa.2341    Mr. Andreas, you are recognized for 5 minutes.23422343     STATEMENT OF GREG ANDREAS, GENERAL MANAGER, PONDEROSA2344                 TELEPHONE, O'NEALS, CALIFORNIA23452346    Mr. Andreas. Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, Vice2347Chairman Kennedy, and members of the Subcommittee, I thank you2348for the opportunity to testify today. I am Greg Andreas,2349General Manager at Ponderosa Telephone in California.2350    I have over 30 years of executive leadership and2351operational expertise across large, multi-national corporations2352and rural telecom providers. My background has provided me with2353the opportunity to lead several small rural operators and2354understand firsthand the unique challenges rural communities2355and their providers face in keeping subscribers connected.2356    Ponderosa Telephone covers 1,650 square miles, from the2357foothills of the Central Valley to the spine of the Sierra2358Nevada mountains, covering Madera and Fresno Counties.2359Ponderosa is in its sixth generation of family management. We2360have over 7,200 customers and serve 10 tribal communities. This2361good work has not been easy, however. We average four homes per2362mile of network built, navigating through rough terrain that is2363difficult and costly to serve.2364    Serving our neighbors, friends, and families is not easy.2365This work rests atop a unique mix of commitment to our2366community, an entrepreneurial spirit, and effective government2367policies and programs that help make and sustain the business2368case for investing and continuing to operate in rural America.2369    Of course, there are a number of community-focused local2370providers like Ponderosa all across the country. We are proud2371members of NTCA, the rural broadband association which2372represents about 850 rural, community-based broadband providers2373that are deploying cutting-edge networks and offering advanced2374communication services in rural America.2375    Turning to this important hearing, I have led critical2376disaster recovery efforts to restore telecommunication2377infrastructure in remote and underserved areas. I look forward2378to sharing the many lessons I have learned in managing2379restoration of communication networks following natural2380disasters. This includes both my time in the Virgin Islands,2381dealing with the impacts of Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017,2382and more recently navigating the inefficient, outdated, and/or2383under-staffed permitting processes in the wake of Ponderosa's2384efforts to help our community recover from catastrophic2385wildfires.2386    On September 4, 2020, the sixth largest wildfire was2387recorded in California history, and it ravaged our community.2388The Creek Fire burned nearly 400,000 acres and destroyed over2389850 buildings. Our preliminary efforts have put total damages2390and restoration costs at approximately $4.1 million.2391    Given my expertise with natural disasters, their impact on2392communication networks, and the challenges of restoring those2393networks, I am pleased to support Representative Bentz's2394Wildfire Communication Resiliency Act under consideration2395today. This legislation aims to tackle the significant delays2396surrounding the restoration of a communication network after a2397wildfire. Communities across the Nation will benefit from this2398legislation being signed into law.2399    I would also encourage this Subcommittee to consider2400similar legislation to address other natural disasters such as2401hurricanes and tornadoes. Networks that get destroyed by2402natural disasters but use the same rights-of-way and permitting2403processes when first approved should be included in2404legislation. Expediting NEPA and NHPA procedures in the wake of2405natural disasters such as wildfires would allow providers to2406swiftly replace damaged infrastructure, deploy permanent2407communication solutions, and ensure that affected areas regain2408access to essential services.2409    These reviews, while important for environmental and2410cultural protections, are often lengthy and complex, even for2411emergency restoration projects of facilities that had2412previously been in the same area. Streamlined approvals are not2413just a matter of regulatory efficiency; they are a lifeline for2414communities trying to rebuild and stay connected.2415    Thank you again for providing me the opportunity to share2416these thoughts with the Committee, and I look forward to2417answering any questions that you may have.2418    [The prepared statement of Mr. Andreas follows:]2419         Prepared Statement of Greg Andreas, General Manager,2420                          Ponderosa Telephone24212422INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND2423    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, Vice Chairman Kennedy, and2424members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify2425at this legislative hearing. My testimony today will focus on H.R.24261655, the ``Wildfire Communication Resiliency Act.''2427    I am Greg Andreas, General Manager at Ponderosa Telephone. I have2428over 30 years of executive leadership and operational expertise across2429large multinational corporations and rural telecommunications2430providers. My background has provided me with the opportunity to lead2431several small rural operators and understand firsthand the unique2432challenges rural communities and providers face in getting and staying2433connected.2434    Ponderosa Telephone covers 1,650 square miles from the foothills to2435the spine of the Sierra Nevada mountains covering Madera and Fresno2436Counties. Ponderosa is in its sixth generation of family management,2437starting in 1908. We have over 7,200 customers and serve 10 tribal2438communities. This good work has not been easy, however. Ninety-five2439percent of our Big Creek exchange is situated on federal land and2440several of our other exchanges also traverse federally managed areas.2441We average four homes per mile of network build, navigating through2442rough terrain that is difficult and costly to serve. It has taken2443extraordinary efforts to serve our neighbors, friends and families--and2444this work rests atop a unique mix of commitment to our community, an2445entrepreneurial spirit, and effective governmental policies and2446programs that help make and sustain the business case for investing and2447continuing to operate in rural America.2448    Of course, there are a number of community-based and community-2449focused local providers like Ponderosa across the country. We are proud2450members of NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association, which represents2451about 850 rural, community-based broadband providers that are deploying2452cutting edge networks and offering advanced communications services in2453deeply rural communities. These operators collectively serve less than2454five percent of the population of the United States but nearly thirty2455percent of its landmass. Much like Ponderosa, these rural providers2456operate in rural areas left behind decades ago when earlier efforts to2457build out our nation's communications networks ignored them because2458they were too sparsely populated.2459    Even before taking my current role at Ponderosa, I have2460unfortunately had significant experience in managing responses to and2461recovery from natural disasters. In 2017, while working for VIYA in the2462United States Virgin Islands, two Category 5 hurricanes (Irma and2463Maria) went overhead two weeks apart on September 6th and 20th2464respectively. With seventy-eight percent of utility poles down, the2465disaster recovery effort was extensive. It took a year to restore2466internet and phone services to over ninety-five percent of customers2467that were down.2468    Experiences like these have given me substantial insights into2469critical disaster recovery efforts to restore telecommunications2470infrastructure in remote and underserved areas, including the need to2471work closely with local and federal stakeholders to ensure rapid2472response, community safety and resilient rebuilding--which brings us to2473this important hearing. I look forward to sharing ``lessons learned''2474in managing recovery and restoration of communications networks2475following natural disasters not only on federal lands that are under2476the purview of this Subcommittee but also along interstate, state, and2477local roadways, under railroad crossings, on poles, and/or in private2478rights of way. These lessons have come from both my time in the Virgin2479Islands dealing with the impacts of hurricanes on networks and more2480recently navigating inefficient, outdated, and/or understaffed2481permitting processes in the wake of Ponderosa's efforts to help our2482community recover from catastrophic wildfires.2483    Wildfires pose a serious threat not only to lives and property but2484also to critical communication infrastructure. As fires spread, they2485can damage cell towers, fiber optic cables (that provide service2486directly to residents and businesses as well as serving as backhaul for2487wireless towers), and power lines--leading to widespread communication2488outages. These disruptions can hinder emergency response efforts, delay2489evacuation alerts, and isolate communities, especially the elderly,2490from vital information. In rural and wildfire-prone areas especially,2491the loss of connectivity can exacerbate already dangerous situations. I2492am grateful for the opportunity to highlight how H.R. 1655 will2493expedite the environmental and historical review processes to ensure2494that swift and reliable networks are back up and running after a2495catastrophic wildfire through restoration of critical communications2496infrastructure.24972020 CREEK FIRE2498    On September 4, 2020, the sixth largest wildfire recorded in2499California history ravaged our community. The Creek fire burned nearly2500400,000 acres, destroyed over 850 buildings, and took well over four2501months to contain. Firefighting costs exceeded $500 million dollars,2502making it one of the costliest fires in California history.2503    Ponderosa experienced the loss of several cell towers due to the2504fire, along with significant damage to our North Fork, Auberry, Shaver2505Lake, Big Creek, and Wishon service areas. Portions of our buried fiber2506were damaged, particularly at access points such as hand-holes and2507pedestals where the fiber transitions above ground. In several2508instances, damage occurred weeks after the initial fire, as residual2509heat from smoldering tree stumps traveled through underground root2510systems and ultimately comprised the network. Preliminary assessments2511put total damages and restoration costs at approximately $4,137,000.25122513[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]25142515    In the aftermath of the Creek Fire, several challenges emerged.2516Restoration crews faced restricted access to impacted areas due to a2517breakdown in interagency coordination among law enforcement, agency2518officials, emergency management and utility stakeholders, delaying2519restoration efforts. We installed temporary networks to continue2520delivering critical communication services to first responders to2521support emergency operations. Although it is not the topic of today's2522hearing specifically, legislation to address interagency coordination2523to combat these breakdowns may be useful in ensuring expedited2524restoration. Restoration delays were further compounded by utility2525companies conducting repairs without submitting 811 locate requests. As2526a result, underground fiber cables were cut and conduits damaged,2527exacerbating the scope of the restoration effort and causing2528unnecessary disruptions to emergency communications for first2529responders.2530    Once the immediate emergency concluded, we were required to comply2531with all applicable federal, state, and tribal permitting regulations.2532It has now been five years since the wildfire, and we are still2533navigating the permitting process to rebuild completely in the affected2534areas.2535GENERAL BROADBAND PERMITTING ISSUES2536    Stepping back, obtaining access to federal lands for broadband2537facilities installation (including restoration)--or otherwise obtaining2538a permit when a project is considered a ``major federal action'' under2539the National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA'') and/or a ``federal2540undertaking'' pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act2541(``NHPA'')--can be a time-consuming, expensive and cumbersome process.2542Due to the nature of the areas served by many rural providers like2543Ponderosa, we often have no alternative but to install fiber under2544roads that cross land owned or managed by federal agencies such as the2545Bureau of Land Management or the Forest Service. Rerouting even a small2546segment of a project is frequently infeasible because of long2547distances, difficult terrain, or the lack of obtainable easements on2548nearby private land--if any exists at all. Moreover, many smaller rural2549providers have no choice but to comply with the NEPA and NHPA processes2550even if they are not installing facilities on federal lands; for2551example, a project undertaken pursuant to a federal broadband grant2552will also face the need to adhere to NEPA and NHPA. I am aware that2553some NTCA members recount delays of up to two years in some cases to2554apply for and obtain permissions to build. Indeed, even if a project2555crosses federal land for only a short distance as part of a broader2556deployment, the entire initiative can be delayed due to the need for2557federal agencies approvals for that portion. Additional delays may2558occur when states, even if they exempt providers from certain2559environmental and historical regulations, use NEPA or NHPA requirements2560to pause or impede restoration efforts.2561    While these processes are cumbersome under normal circumstances, in2562the wake of a wildfire, they can lead to significant delays as2563companies like Ponderosa work to reconnect their communities to the2564outside world. In the aftermath of a wildfire, quickly restoring and2565rebuilding communication infrastructure is essential to reconnect2566communities, support emergency services, and enable recovery efforts.2567Thus, any effort to streamline these processes as communities recover2568from wildfires is essential.2569H.R. 16552570    I am pleased to support Representative Bentz's Wildfire2571Communication Resiliency Act, under consideration today--and I thank2572him for his leadership. This legislation aims to tackle the significant2573delays surrounding the restoration of a communication facility after a2574wildfire. Communities across the nation will benefit from this2575legislation being signed into law. I would also encourage this2576Subcommittee to consider similar legislation to address other natural2577disasters such as hurricanes or tornadoes. Expediting NEPA and NHPA2578procedures in the wake of natural disasters such as wildfires would2579allow providers to swiftly replace damaged infrastructure, deploy2580permanent communications solutions, and ensure that affected areas2581regain access to essential services. As I previously stated, it has2582been five years since the Creek fire, and we are still navigating the2583permitting process to restore our networks. These reviews, while2584important for environmental and cultural projections, are often lengthy2585and complex--even for restoration projects of facilities that had2586previously been in the very same area. Streamlined approvals are not2587just a matter of regulatory efficiency--they are a lifeline for2588communities trying to rebuild and stay connected.2589Closing2590    By streamlining NEPA and NHPA review processes for communications2591facilities on federal lands post-wildfire, providers like Ponderosa2592will be better positioned to engage in the rapid restoration of2593networks. In an era of increasingly frequent and severe wildfires,2594ensuring fast, reliable deployment and restoration of communication2595infrastructure is critical now more than ever. These networks are the2596backbone of emergency response, public safety, and community2597resilience.2598    Thank you again for providing me with the opportunity to share2599these thoughts with the Committee. I look forward to working with this2600Subcommittee, other Members of Congress, the federal agencies of2601jurisdiction, and other stakeholders.26022603                                 ______26042605    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Andreas, and2606now I will turn to questions from the Committee.2607    Mr. Fulcher, you have 5 minutes.2608    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the2609panel for your comments and testimony today.2610    Mr. Andreas, with your testimony it was a prompting2611reminder. I am going to take the first brief minute here and2612just do a shameless pitch for one of my bills not on the docket2613today, but I am going to pitch it anyway. In your testimony you2614highlighted that even brief crossings of Federal land can stall2615an entire broadband project for up to 2 years.2616    My bill, H.R. 2298, Reducing Barriers for Broadband on2617Federal Lands Act, helps fix that by exempting previously2618reviewed rights-of-ways on Federal land from NEPA and NHPA2619reviews and, if enacted, this would alleviate the time-2620consuming and expensive permitting process. So I wanted to just2621pitch that out there.2622    But I am going to go with that to a question to you, Mr.2623Andreas. I am from the State of Idaho, and many Idaho telecom2624routes cross not just Federal and State, but also private lands2625in one single project. And as you know, that triggers many2626duplicative NEPA and NHPA reviews, and that drives up both time2627and cost. So from your vantage point, what legislative or2628administrative solutions can we employ to try to streamline2629that permitting process?2630    Mr. Andreas. Well, I think that the number-one thing would2631be to pass Congressman Bentz's bill to eliminate the need for2632NEPA and NHPA.2633    In California we do have a significant number of State2634regulations, as well, and there are times when State agencies2635will utilize Federal programs like NEPA, and I will give you a2636quick example. Caltrans, right now, when we are trying to build2637in currently-used right-of-ways, we are exempted from NEPA. But2638Caltrans will come along and say, ``We require you to follow2639NEPA,'' or--and you have to follow it. You don't have a choice.2640We are exempted from the State programs.2641    So there is sort of a battle between the State agencies,2642like you said, and the Federal agencies. I don't know if there2643is some type of pre-emption that could be done from Federal2644level, but it is a battle that we fight pretty often.2645    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that, and that is something that2646we need to definitely take a look at. So thank you for your2647input there. I am going to come back to you, Mr. Andreas. You2648also described in your written testimony that it has been 52649years since the 2020 Creek Fire, if I have got this right, the26502020 Creek Fire, and you are still working through the2651permitting to rebuild buried fiber in cell sites.2652    North Idaho again, I have to equate this to my own State,2653but in north Idaho's pay-per-mile cost structure, it is often2654fewer than four homes in a mile. What economic impact would a26555-year NEPA, NHPA exemption, an exemption, have on small rural2656telecom providers' ability to reinvest in its network?2657    Mr. Andreas. Well, one of the biggest issues that we deal2658with when we go through a wildfire situation like the Creek2659Fire, our insurance will pay us like for like. So if we have2660copper in the ground and it gets destroyed in a wildfire, or2661aerial, our insurance company will pay us to replace the2662copper, but will not pay us to replace it with fiber, which is2663obviously the direction that we go. So we end up digging into2664our own pockets to pay for that upgrade, if you will, to fiber.2665    So I think that focusing on some of those items would be2666very helpful for us in situations where we have to dig into our2667own pockets and have to subsidize that rebuild by ourselves.2668    Mr. Fulcher. So I have got just 1 minute left. I want to2669ask you another question that was not planned here that just2670popped into my head.2671    Mr. Andreas. Sure.2672    Mr. Fulcher. From your vantage point, is wireless2673technology starting to progress to the point where it can take2674the place of some of the fiber and copper that is out there2675that has to be installed?2676    Mr. Andreas. I would say no, and the reason being is we are2677also using some fixed wireless in Ponderosa, but all the cell2678towers that are up there, the cell phones can't connect to2679other cell phones or other phones without fiber backhaul that2680takes the data and the phone calls from the cell phone towers2681into the network.2682    So in short, no, it could not replace it in total.2683    Mr. Fulcher. OK. Thank you, Mr. Andreas.2684    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.2685    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now recognize the2686gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber, for 5 minutes.2687    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair.2688    Mr. Andreas, as you shared in your testimony, when2689communities face natural disasters like wildfires, not only are2690they negatively impacted by the disaster itself, but they are2691also negatively impacted by the mountains of red tape that2692unfortunately follows. These communities aren't only hurt in2693the days or weeks when the disaster occurs, but they are also2694hurt by the bureaucracy they are forced to deal with in the2695aftermath.2696    Could you explain, please explain--or, correction--expand2697upon the long-term impacts of the rebuilding process?2698    And how do these delays and rebuilding impact these2699communities?2700    Mr. Andreas. I will just use an example from the Creek2701Fire. We have areas within the wildfire area that haven't even2702begun to rebuild yet. We have to go through permitting to get2703communications to these areas.2704    Mr. Stauber. Five years later?2705    Mr. Andreas. Five years later we are still trying to2706rebuild. People have not rebuilt their homes, and they don't2707want to rebuild their homes because there is no communication2708to those homes. There is power that hasn't been laid down to2709these homes up in the, you know, higher parts of the Sierra2710Nevada.2711    Mr. Stauber. You were saying something about NEPA, and I2712interrupted you. Finish up.2713    Mr. Andreas. Well, just the fact that, in terms of if we2714didn't have to go through NEPA approval or the historical2715preservation approvals, that would speed things up, OK, and,2716obviously, the sooner that we get things restored, the sooner2717that we are generating revenue for ourselves and for our2718company, and that we can put back into the network to upgrade2719and rebuild the community.2720    Mr. Stauber. So you are saying that if you didn't have to2721go in NEPA to replace the same fiber line into these2722neighborhoods, if you didn't have to, today, quite conceivably,2723the neighborhoods could be rebuilt and people would want to2724come back. It is because they are not connected. Is that2725correct?2726    Mr. Andreas. Conceivably, yes. It may or may not be because2727they are not connected. There are many other factors that build2728into it. Some people do not have fire insurance in areas of2729California.2730    Mr. Stauber. Yes.2731    Mr. Andreas. So when their house burns down, they have2732nothing to rebuild it with. So it is not as simple as, well,2733they don't have land lines or they don't have data2734capabilities. It is one aspect of it, though.2735    Mr. Stauber. OK. Would you say it is common to see2736individuals move from their homes or businesses out of the2737communities simply because they now lack the infrastructure2738needed for the everyday activities that make up their daily2739lives and help their businesses become successful? Have you2740seen that?2741    Mr. Andreas. They have to move somewhere. A lot of times it2742is very close to where they had a home before, they had family.2743You know, people have lived in the areas that they are for2744hundreds of years. They have families. Our ownership goes back2745over 100 years. So they don't typically move too far.2746    Mr. Stauber. I appreciate your experience, and I appreciate2747all of the testimony today. I think it is really important2748that, after a natural disaster, that we are able to rebuild in2749a timely fashion without the redundancy and the red tape that2750is stopping our communities to get back on their feet.2751    And with the remainder of my time I am going to yield to2752Chairman Tiffany for 1 minute and 20 seconds.2753    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you.2754    I would like to follow up on what Mr. Stauber was asking2755here, Mr. Andreas. Sum up what you think are a few changes that2756should be made in Federal policy that could make your life2757easier, could allow you to expand to a greater extent your2758business. What are those things that you would like to see2759changed?2760    Mr. Andreas. Are you asking from an overall Federal policy2761standpoint?2762    Mr. Tiffany. Yes.2763    Mr. Andreas. In telecommunications? Well, one of the first2764issues that we deal with is the Universal Service Fund, as I am2765sure everybody here is aware of. If Universal Service Fund goes2766away, it puts rural telephone companies like ours with 7,2002767subscribers in a very difficult situation. Federal obligations,2768requirements, reporting requirements, things like that put a2769lot of stress on a small company like ours.2770    Mr. Tiffany. Is that the reporting requirement that has to2771do with the Securities and Exchange Commission?2772    Mr. Andreas. No, really FCC reporting requirements,2773reporting requirements associated with reconnect or USDA loans.2774    Mr. Tiffany. OK.2775    Mr. Andreas. Things like that, where we have to provide2776subscriber counts, performance measures, things like that. We2777only have 86 employees in our company. We can't dedicate a2778whole bunch of people to it. Bigger companies can spread that2779requirement across a couple different people. If they have2780700,000 subscribers, that is an easier way for them to spread2781that cost.2782    Mr. Tiffany. And you would include NEPA in this list, I am2783assuming?2784    Mr. Andreas. Absolutely, yes.2785    Mr. Tiffany. And I am assuming you would include2786controlling wildfire in rural areas in America.2787    Mr. Andreas. Yes, I would absolutely include those.2788    Mr. Tiffany. I yield back.2789    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Chair, I yield back to you. Thank you.2790    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now recognize Mr.2791Kennedy from Utah for 5 minutes.2792    Dr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chair, yet again for the2793opportunity to speak.2794    And Dr. Yocom, I would like to address a few questions to2795you. Similar legislation to mine, H.R. 1045, passed the Senate2796last Congress. And if we can get this bill signed into law with2797the support of the Utah delegation, my colleagues around the2798dais as well as on the floor, what would it mean for Utah State2799University in the State's capacity to advance cutting-edge2800research when it comes to wildfire management?2801    Dr. Yocom. Thank you for the question.2802    I think it would increase our capacity to focus on wildfire2803research by a huge amount. There are very few people overall2804working in Utah on wildfire research, and so having an2805institute dedicated specifically to that, as well as to2806practical management solutions, I think would be really2807impactful for Utah.2808    As I mentioned, there is a little bit of a gap in Utah in2809terms of understanding exactly which management actions work in2810which forests and why. And so I think it is past time for Utah2811to focus resources on these questions.2812    Dr. Kennedy. You did mention Utah does require scientific2813research focused on that specific geography. Could you expand2814on the details associated with that that would allow this SWERI2815institute to do a better job not only for Utah, but throughout2816the West and the country generally?2817    Dr. Yocom. Sure. Yes, a lot of what we know comes from dry,2818ponderosa pine-based forests. We have a lot of information2819about how to reduce wildfire risk in those types of forests.2820Utah has a unique mix. We don't have very much ponderosa pine.2821We have pinyon juniper woodlands, for example, that a lot of2822people live near, as well as mixed conifer forests with a2823little bit of ponderosa but other tree types.2824    And there is a lot of questions still just on the2825ecological side about what, you know, what role fire plays in2826those forests, and exactly how we could use management2827activities to reduce fire risk in the most efficient and2828effective way.2829    Dr. Kennedy. Thank you very much. In Utah State University,2830their current collaboration with the SWERIs that are throughout2831the West, what does that collaborative work look like at this2832point?2833    Dr. Yocom. The existing SWERIs have been really2834collaborative, and so have we. We have been working closely2835with them in determining the best way to join them as a new2836SWERI. They each focus mostly on their own States, but they2837also work together on larger regional projects. And I think2838adding a SWERI in Utah would not only help Utah, but also2839contribute to that region-wide understanding of fire risk and2840how to reduce it.2841    Dr. Kennedy. Very good. Thank you very much.2842    And Judge Blackmon, I thank you, and all the witnesses for2843being here. Judge Blackmon, I was interested in the building2844that was poorly roofed, subsequent damage that came to that2845building. I would like you to render an opinion.2846    By the way, your representative that is sponsoring this2847bill is an outstanding representative here. I have, as a2848freshman, great admiration for Congressman Hill and the great2849work that he does.2850    But so tell me. If the locals had done the contract with2851the roofer versus Washington, D.C. doing the contract with the2852roofer, do you have an opinion of whether or not that roof2853might have been done correctly? And especially if there was an2854investment, if you owned that building and you were the ones2855that were contracting to make sure the roof got on the correct2856way so the building wasn't damaged, might that building have2857actually been roofed properly and potentially saved not only2858the taxpayers but your local community a lot of money2859associated with this? Can you give me an opinion about that?2860    Judge Blackmon. Yes, sir. Basically, what happened is the2861Forestry Service contracted having a new roof put on by a2862contractor that I am unaware of who the contractor was. And2863then I have friends that work for the Forest Service that told2864me that, not long after the new roof was installed, it started2865leaking.2866    By this time, the process of the Forestry Service getting2867rid of the building in some capacity had already started. So2868instead of having the contractor come back that installed the2869roof originally make repairs, they just said, well, there is no2870need because we are going to get rid of the building.2871    Dr. Kennedy. Right.2872    Judge Blackmon. So I have been trying to push this process2873along as quickly as possible, because every time it rains there2874is more damage that happens to the building.2875    Dr. Kennedy. Well, I appreciate what you are doing and what2876your Representative Hill is doing, as well.2877    The reality is local control versus distant control. We can2878see that with who cares about this building. Well, it is a2879taxpayer-funded, federally taxpayer-funded building right now.2880And now what are we talking, $10,000, tens of thousands,2881hundreds of thousands of dollars to repair the damage2882associated with shoddy work?2883    Judge Blackmon. I am guessing somewhere around $75,000 by2884the time we put a new roof on it and make the repairs. And the2885unknown is, until we start the repairs, we don't know how2886extensive the damage is.2887    Dr. Kennedy. Yes. Right, of course. I am very excited to2888see local control hold sway, and especially for the 4-H to have2889a place to----2890    Judge Blackmon. Yes.2891    Dr. Kennedy [continuing]. To actually have their2892outstanding services. So thank you for promoting this. I am2893certainly promoting it, as well.2894    Mr. Chair, I yield back.2895    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I am going to take my 52896minutes for questioning. I want to follow up on what2897Representative Kennedy was just talking about, Judge Blackmon.2898I am sorry I was not here during your testimony.2899    So I take it this building is no longer used by the Forest2900Service. Is that right?2901    Judge Blackmon. Yes, sir.2902    Mr. Tiffany. How long has that been the case, Judge2903Blackmon?2904    Judge Blackmon. They downsized to just two or three2905employees a few years ago. And then last summer the last2906employee moved out, and they moved over into Garland County, to2907another county where they worked out of that center. So the2908building has been sitting empty almost a year.2909    Mr. Tiffany. Has that building been put up for sale by the2910Federal Government?2911    Judge Blackmon. No, sir, they have not. They had an2912appraisal done of $200,000 on the building, and they offered it2913to Perry County for that sale price. But when we looked at the2914repairs that are going to be necessary to the building, the2915county at that point realized that we could not afford to2916purchase the building and then make the necessary repairs with2917the limited funding that we have to work with.2918    Mr. Tiffany. So that building was in significant disrepair,2919is that correct?2920    Judge Blackmon. Yes, sir. And like I said, it is currently2921leaking right now. The roof has not been repaired. We had a2922major flood about 6 weeks ago, and more of the roof was blown2923off and damaged at that point. So right now, every time it2924rains the damage is increasing to the building.2925    Mr. Tiffany. So down in Perryville, when it rains it pours.2926    Judge Blackmon. Yes, sir.2927    Mr. Tiffany. I think this is just a great example of how2928this effort to purchase more land and encumber more land by the2929Federal Government is really wrongheaded. We should first be2930maintaining the facilities that we have.2931    Judge Blackmon. Yes.2932    Mr. Tiffany. I don't know if you care to comment on that,2933Judge Blackmon, but it just seems to me that rather than buying2934more land, buying more facilities, we need to maintain what we2935have with the hundreds of thousands of acres, well, the2936millions of acres that the Federal Government owns and2937operates.2938    Judge Blackmon. Yes. They have the same challenge that I2939have in the county. They have limited resources also. And so,2940you know, they basically consolidated into another building,2941and so this building is sitting there empty.2942    So I am sure that, in their opinion, they can't justify2943spending money on this building when they have the other2944buildings to maintain. And then they have the hundreds, if not2945thousands of miles there in the national forest to maintain2946also.2947    Mr. Tiffany. Yes. So I would just share this comment, and2948you don't have to reply to it, any of you on the panel. But we2949hear consistently about how the only way that we can go is to2950purchase more land, to put more facilities up on Federal land,2951that we shouldn't reconsider, hey, decades have passed, maybe2952things have changed, maybe we could do things differently.2953    I think this is a good example of how we should be doing2954things differently. And this notion that we can't transfer some2955land perhaps to States, to locals, and whatever I think is so2956wrongheaded because times do change, and there are better ways2957in which we can steward the natural resources of the United2958States of America than simply having Federal ownership and2959Federal control.2960    The other thing that I would say in closing here, I did not2961get a chance to ask questions of Deputy Chief Crockett, but2962everyone was led to believe here today that the Bureau of2963State, Private, and Local Forestry is going to be shut down,2964and land is not going to be managed anymore, and people are not2965going to be worked with if there are changes. I think this is a2966very good parallel.2967    Because the current Administration wants to make some2968changes in how we structure an agency doesn't mean that the2969work isn't going to be done. And if we are going to do an2970effective job here at the Natural Resources Committee and the2971Federal Government in managing our natural resources, in2972particular in the West, and if we are going to end wildfire or2973at least have it in much greater control, there is a few things2974that need to happen.2975    One, we need to hire more foresters within the Forest2976Service. I remember talking to my friends in northern Wisconsin2977years ago who said, we have enough ologists. They referred to2978them as ologists. We need more foresters that are going to mark2979trees and manage our forest land.2980    Second of all, we need to expedite NEPA, as we saw in2981regard to the telecom issue, including things like broader and2982bigger categorical exclusions. We need to do those things if we2983are going to manage properly.2984    And the final thing is we need to bring industry back, and2985we see it with the whole tariffs discussion and all the rest.2986We have to bring industry back to America, and we need to build2987mills. I think about the gentleman from California when I was2988out to Yosemite a few years ago, and they talked about, what, a2989couple hundred mills have shut down over the last three or four2990decades in the wood-consuming mills out in the Sierras. There2991is no wonder that we have a wildfire problem when you do not2992have the infrastructure, in particular the mills that can take2993that wood and turn it into two-by-fours and lots of other good2994stuff that we can rebuild America with.2995    It is time. It is time that we make changes to how we do2996our natural resource management here in America in order to2997build things, employ people in building those things, and2998making sure that the permitting processes are not so onerous2999that we can no longer build things. Because if we turn those3000things around by having better permitting processes, by3001building the infrastructure here in America, we will restore3002American greatness and make things in America once again, and I3003can't wait for that day to come. And I sure hope the Natural3004Resources Committee is one of the lynchpins in making that3005happen here at the Federal level.3006    With that I want to thank all of you for attending today.3007And as so often is the case, you folks come from the Western3008States and you have a long ways to travel. We appreciate it3009more than you know, that you would take the time out of your3010day and week to come here and provide your testimony.3011    The members of the Subcommittee may have some additional3012questions for you, and we will ask that you respond to those in3013writing. Under Committee rule 3, members of the Subcommittee3014must submit questions to the Subcommittee clerk by 5 p.m. on3015Friday, June 13, 2025. The hearing record will be held open for301610 business days for your responses.3017    If there is no further business, without objection, the3018Subcommittee on Federal Lands stands adjourned.3019    [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]30203021            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]30223023    Prepared Statement of the Hon. French Hill, a Representative in3024                  Congress from the State of Arkansas30253026    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the3027subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I3028appreciate the chance to testify in support of my legislation, H.R.30293187, to require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey a parcel of3030property owned by the Forest Service to Perry County, Arkansas, and for3031other purposes.3032    This bill seeks to transfer ownership of a vacant federal building3033owned by the U.S. Forest Service, and O.81 acres of land located at30341069 Fourche Avenue in Perryville, Arkansas, to Perry County. The3035property is no longer in use by the Forest Service and there are no3036plans for its future utilization.3037    Perry County is a small, rural community with a population of3038around 10,000. Approximately 16% of residents live below the poverty3039line. About 77% of the county is forested, with 72% of that land3040privately owned. The U.S. Forest Service is the largest public3041landowner in the county, managing 119,171 acres as part of the Ouachita3042National Forest.3043    For several years, Perry County has sought to acquire this3044property. However, due to limited resources and a high poverty rate,3045the small county has been unable to purchase it outright. My3046legislation would enable the federal government to convey the property3047at no cost to the county.3048    While the building will require repairs and updates, Perry County3049has the funds to make the necessary improvements. Once restored, the3050facility will support vital local programs. Specifically, it will house3051the permanent operations of the University of Arkansas Extension3052Program, the Perry County Conservation District, and serve as a meeting3053space for the 4-H Youth Development Program. These organizations are3054currently struggling with limited space, which hampers their ability to3055serve the community effectively.3056    The University of Arkansas Extension Office provides critical,3057research-based information to local families, youth, and farmers. It3058hosts educational workshops focused on agriculture, health, and3059nutrition. This is particularly important, as 40% of youth and 64% of3060adults in Perry County are classified as overweight or obese. A larger3061space will enable the Extension Program to better promote healthy3062eating habits and teach residents how to grow and prepare nutritious3063meals, empowering them to make long-term improvements in their health3064and well-being.3065    There is strong local support for this conveyance. Those who have3066expressed their support include:30673068  1.  Larry Blackmon, Perry County Judge30693070  2.  Kevin Lawson, County Extension Agent--Agriculture, Faulkner3071            County30723073  3.  Tammy Farnam, Administrative Assistant III, Perry County3074            Extension Office30753076  4.  Jacob Farnam, Board President, Perryville School District30773078  5.  Kallem Hill, President, Perry County Farm Bureau Board of3079            Directors30803081  6.  Nicole Strecker, 4-H Leader, Perryville High School30823083  7.  Donnie Crain, President/CEO, Perry County Chamber of Commerce30843085  8.  Amy Branch, Chair of the Board, Perry County Conservation Board30863087  9.  David ``Butch'' Hoyt, Vice President, Perry County Cattlemen's3088            Association30893090  10.  Chairperson, Perry County Conservation District30913092  11.  Rose Gunther, Former 4-H Member, Perry County30933094  12.  Ettamarie Belden, 4-H Leader and Volunteer, Perry County30953096  13.  John Roland, Mayor, Perryville30973098    In conclusion, H.R. 3187 will provide Perry County with a much-3099needed facility to expand youth development, agricultural education,3100and community health initiatives. The conveyance of this unused federal3101property will create lasting benefits for the people of Perry County.3102    Chairman Tiffany, that concludes my testimony. I would be happy to3103answer any questions you, or other members of the subcommittee may3104have.31053106                           [all]