[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1045, H.R. 1655, H.R. 3187,
AND H.R. 3444
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, June 10, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-31
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-746 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, VA, Vice Chairman
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member
Robert J. Wittman, VA Joe Neguse, CO
Tom McClintock, CA Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Paul Gosar, AZ Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Val T. Hoyle, OR
Doug LaMalfa, CA Seth Magaziner, RI
Daniel Webster, FL Jared Golden, ME
Russ Fulcher, ID Dave Min, CA
Pete Stauber, MN Maxine Dexter, OR
Tom Tiffany, WI Pablo Jose Hernandez, PR
Lauren Boebert, CO Emily Randall, WA
Cliff Bentz, OR Yassamin Ansari, AZ
Jen Kiggans, VA Sarah Elfreth, MD
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Adam Gray, CA
Mike Collins, GA Luz Rivas, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Mark Amodei, NV Debbie Dingell, MI
Tim Walberg, MI Darren Soto, FL
Mike Ezell, MS Julia Brownley, CA
Celeste Maloy, UT Susie Lee, NV
Addison McDowell, NC
Jeff Crank, CO
Nick Begich, AK
Jeff Hurd, CO
Mike Kennedy, UT
Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
William David, Chief Counsel
Ana Unruh Cohen, Democratic Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
TOM TIFFANY, WI, Chairman
MIKE KENNEDY, UT, Vice Chair
JOE NEGUSE, CO, Ranking Member
Tom McClintock, CA Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN Jared Golden, ME
Cliff Bentz, OR Maxine Dexter, OR
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Emily Randall, WA
Mark Amodei, NV Susie Lee, NV
Celeste Maloy, UT Jared Huffman, CA, ex officio
Mike Kennedy, UT
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing Memo..................................................... v
Hearing held on Tuesday, June 10, 2025........................... 1
Statement of Members:
Tiffany, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wisconsin......................................... 2
Neguse, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado................................................ 3
Panel I:
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 4
Bentz, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 7
Kennedy, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 8
Hill, Hon. French, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arkansas, prepared statement for the record....... 41
Statement of Witnesses:
Panel II:
Crockett, John, Deputy Chief of State, Private and Tribal
Forestry, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C............. 8
Prepared Statement of.................................... 10
Panel III:
Blackmon, Hon. Larry, Judge, Perry County, Perryville,
Arkansas................................................... 19
Prepared Statement of.................................... 21
Yocom, Larissa, Director, Utah Forest Restoration Institute,
Logan, Utah................................................ 22
Prepared Statement of.................................... 24
Tripp, Bill, Director of Natural Resources and Environmental
Policy, Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources,
Orleans, California........................................ 25
Prepared Statement of.................................... 27
Andreas, Greg, General Manager, Ponderosa Telephone, O'Neals,
California................................................. 30
Prepared Statement of.................................... 31
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
To: Subcommittee on Federal Lands Republican Members
From: Subcommittee on Federal Lands; Aniela Butler and William
Kelleher ([email protected] and
[email protected]; x6-7736)
Date: Monday, June 9, 2025
Subject: Legislative Hearing on 4 Bills
________________________________________________________________________
_______
The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will hold a legislative hearing
on 4 bills: H.R. 1045 (Rep. Kennedy), ``Utah Wildfire Research
Institute Act of 2025''; H.R. 1655 (Rep. Bentz), ``Wildfire
Communications Resiliency Act''; H.R. 3187 (Rep. Hill), To require the
Secretary of Agriculture to convey a parcel of property of the Forest
Service to Perry County, Arkansas, and for other purposes; and H.R.
3444 (Rep. Huffman), ``Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in
Forestry Act of 2025.''
The hearing will take place on Tuesday, June 10, 2025, at 10:15
a.m. in room 1324 Longworth House Office Building.
Member offices are requested to notify Will Rodriguez
([email protected]) by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, June 9, 2025,
if their Member intends to participate in the hearing.
I. KEY MESSAGES
The pieces of legislation featured in this hearing offer
targeted solutions to improve land and forest management,
collaborate with non-federal partners to inform science-
based management practices, and reduce bureaucratic
processes post-natural disaster.
This hearing helps advance President Trump's agenda and
recent executive actions, including the executive orders on
``Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production'' and
``Restoring Common Sense to Federal Office Space
Management.'' 1
House Committee on Natural Resources Republicans are
committed to strengthening Tribal stewardship of fire-prone
landscapes and fostering meaningful partnerships between
Tribes and the federal government. This hearing complements
a prior hearing on related draft legislation, the
``Fostering Opportunities to Restore Ecosystems through
Sound Tribal Stewardship (FORESTS) Act.'' 2
II. WITNESSES
Panel I (Members of Congress):
To Be Announced
Panel II (Administration Witnesses):
Mr. John Crockett, Deputy Chief of State, Private and
Tribal Forestry, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C. [All
bills]
Panel III (Outside Experts):
The Honorable Larry Blackmon, Judge, Perry County,
Perryville, AR [H.R. 3187]
Ms. Larissa Yocom, Director, Utah Forest Restoration
Institute, Logan, UT [H.R. 1045]
Mr. Greg Andreas, General Manager, Go Ponderosa, O'Neals,
CA [H.R. 1655]
Mr. Bill Tripp, Director of Natural Resources and
Environmental Policy, Karuk Tribe Department of Natural
Resources, Orleans, CA [H.R. 3444] [Minority Witness]
III. BACKGROUND
H.R. 1045 (Rep. Kennedy), ``Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of
2025''
The ``Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of 2004''
authorized the creation of wildfire research centers in Arizona,
Colorado, and New Mexico ``to promote the use of adaptive ecosystem
management to reduce the risk of wildfires, and restore the health of
forest and woodland ecosystems, in the interior West.'' 3
These centers, collectively known as the Southwest Ecological
Restoration Institutes (SWERI), now operate at Colorado State
University, New Mexico Highlands University, and Northern Arizona
University.4 Today, these centers conduct cutting-edge
research on wildfires and forest management 5 and
collaborate with land managers to ensure the implementation of science-
based forest management decisions. As part of this work, SWERI must
produce annual, peer-reviewed, scientific reports and develop work
plans with the Secretary of Agriculture to ensure accountability.
Despite a long track record of being at the forefront of
responsible resource management and forestry research, Utah is
currently the only Four Corners State without a SWERI center. To
address this disparity, H.R. 1045 would amend the ``Southwest Forest
Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of 2004'' to create one additional
SWERI center in the State of Utah.6 This legislation would
provide Utah with additional resources to conduct research and
collaborate on wildfire mitigation, forest management, and watershed
restoration projects. Further, this legislation allows the State of
Utah to leverage academic resources to collaborate with federal, state,
and local stakeholders; develop adaptive forest management techniques;
and implement fuel reduction strategies.7 A similar version
of this legislation passed the Senate unanimously in the 118th
Congress, and a companion bill has been introduced this Congress by
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Mike Lee (R-
UT).8
H.R. 1655 (Rep. Bentz), ``Wildfire Communications Resiliency Act''
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Increasingly dangerous and severe wildfires are a growing
threat to critical infrastructure, including communications facilities.
According to recent studies, ``hundreds to thousands of cell
transceivers are within wildfire perimeters each year,'' causing
blackouts, loss of connectivity, and damage or destruction of
communications infrastructure.9 This issue impacts millions
of people annually, as researchers have found that there are more than
57,500 cell transceivers in high-fire risk areas that serve populations
over 1.5 million people.10 Most recently, the Eaton Fire in
Los Angeles threatened the antenna farm and broadcasting transmitters
at Mount Wilson, causing temporary limits to ``the broadcasting
capabilities of Los Angeles' major TV and radio stations.''
11
If a communications facility is damaged or destroyed during a
wildfire on federal lands, developers must go through a lengthy and
burdensome permitting process to rebuild this infrastructure. This
process is not only duplicative, since environmental and historic
preservation reviews would already have been conducted during the
facility's initial permitting process, but it also significantly delays
the ability to bring critical wireless and communications capabilities
back online post-fire. To address this problem, H.R. 1655 would remove
the need to complete duplicative National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) reviews for
certain communications facilities already permitted that need to be
rebuilt or repaired due to wildfire damage.12 The bill
applies only to areas where the President, the governor of a state, or
a Tribal chief executive have declared a major disaster or emergency.
Projects must occur within five years of the declaration, occur
entirely within the impacted area, and focus on replacing damaged
facilities or upgrading infrastructure to reduce future risk.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The bill addresses a critical gap in post-disaster recovery
efforts: the timely restoration of essential communications systems.
Lengthy and duplicative environmental and historic preservation reviews
often delay construction projects that are critical to restoring
services and public safety. H.R. 1655 offers a narrow, targeted
solution designed to expedite recovery without broadly waiving the need
to complete environmental or cultural resources reviews on the initial
construction of a communications facility. Through this tailored
approach, this legislation helps ensure rapid response capacity and
resilient infrastructure in wildfire-prone regions.
H.R. 3187 (Rep. Hill), To require the Secretary of Agriculture to
convey a parcel of property of the Forest Service to Perry
County, Arkansas, and for other purposes.
This legislation removes a burden from the American taxpayer by
disposing of a vacant federal building, consistent with President
Trump's Executive Order on ``Restoring Common Sense to Federal Office
Space Management.'' 13
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Perry County, Arkansas, is a rural area northwest of Little
Rock with roughly 10,000 residents.14 The U.S. Forest
Service (USFS) manages approximately 119,171 acres of forested land and
administrative buildings in Perry County.15 One such
building, located on approximately 0.81 acres of land in Perryville,
Arkansas, is currently vacant, and USFS has no future plans for its
use. Perry County has long sought to acquire this property to meet
growing needs in education, conservation, and youth services, but has
been unsuccessful in doing so for more than a decade.16
H.R. 3187 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey this
building and its surrounding land to Perry County. Perry County intends
to renovate and repurpose the site to support the University of
Arkansas Extension Program, the Perry County Conservation District, and
youth development programs such as 4-H.17 This is a smart
use of public resources that would serve a compelling public purpose,
particularly in a rural county with limited financial resources.
Creating a permanent space for the University of Arkansas Extension
Program and 4-H Youth Development Program would enhance their
coordination and allow them to expand outreach to more Perry County
youth. H.R. 3187 provides a cost-effective solution that leverages
existing infrastructure for community use and empowers local efforts to
support economic development, natural resource stewardship, and youth
engagement.
H.R. 3444 (Rep. Huffman), ``Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management
in Forestry Act of 2025''
H.R. 3444 seeks to enhance the role of Tribal governments in the
management of federal lands by formally authorizing new and existing
co-management plans between Tribes and federal land management
agencies. Section 2 of the bill directs the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service
(NPS), and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to develop a ``Tribal Co-
Management Plan'' in consultation with the Department of the Interior's
(DOI) Tribal Advisory Committee. These plans would cover forest and
grassland planning and management activities, research and development,
restoration activities, and recreational services on federal lands.
Section 3 directs DOI to ensure that employees involved in the
formulation of these plans undergo training on working with Tribes on
the development and execution of such plans. Finally, Section 4 directs
USFS to enter into at least five agreements over a four-year period to
carry out forest management, research, recreation, or restoration
activities. This section stipulates that USFS cannot delegate any
nondelegable functions to Tribes and lays out a process for Tribes to
request to enter into agreements with USFS. Finally, this section
authorizes $50 million in appropriations for five years.
The Federal Lands Subcommittee recently held a legislative hearing
on a discussion draft of Tribal forestry legislation led by Indian and
Insular Affairs Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Hurd (R-CO-03) entitled the
``Fostering Opportunities to Restore Ecosystems through Sound Tribal
Stewardship (FORESTS) Act.'' Information about that legislation can be
found at link below:
https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hearing_memo_--
_sub_on_fl_leg_hrg_on_forests_act__05.20.25.pdf
Both the FORESTS Act and H.R. 3444 illustrate that there is room
for bipartisan agreement on some crucial forest management issues. As
USFS testified in the legislative hearing on the FORESTS Act,
encouraging more Tribal co-stewardship of overgrown, fire-prone federal
lands is also consistent with President Trump's Executive Order on
``Immediate Expansion of Timber Production.'' 18
Outstanding questions remain regarding H.R. 3444. For example,
Sections 2 and 3 of the legislation exclude USFS, a critical agency for
co-stewardship in forestry, and are ambiguous about how Tribal Co-
Management Plans and associated training will interact with existing
land use or resource management plans. Further, it is unclear what
portion of these plans actually delegates co-management authority to
Tribes. There are also questions about how Section 4 interacts with
existing authorities, primarily the Tribal Forest Protection Act of
2004 and Good Neighbor Authority.19 Further, the un-offset
authorization of appropriations does not comply with Republican floor
protocols.
IV. MAJOR PROVISIONS & SECTION-BY-SECTION
H.R. 1045 (Rep. Kennedy), ``Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of
2025''
Section 2. Additional Institute.
Amends the ``Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire
Prevention Act of 2004'' to add Utah as a fourth location
for a SWERI center, joining Arizona, New Mexico, and
Colorado.
H.R. 1655 (Rep. Bentz), ``Wildfire Communications Resiliency Act''
Section 2. Application of NEPA and NHPA to Covered Communications
Projects.
Exempts certain covered communications projects from NEPA
and NHPA reviews.20 In order to qualify, a
covered communications project must be:
Carried out entirely in an area where the President, a
Governor, or Indian Tribe has declared a major disaster or
emergency related to wildfire;
Carried out within five years of such declaration; and
Designed to replace or make improvements to a communications
facility necessary to recover from, mitigate, or prevent a
wildfire.
H.R. 3187 (Rep. Hill), To require the Secretary of Agriculture to
convey a parcel of property of the Forest Service to Perry
County, Arkansas, and for other purposes.
Section 1. Conveyance of Specified Forest Service Property to Perry
County, Arkansas.
Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to convey
approximately 0.81 acres of USFS land to Perry County,
Arkansas within 180 days of the bill's enactment if the
county submits a written request for the conveyance.
Specifies that the conveyance will be made subject to
valid and existing rights, without consideration, and that
the exact property to be conveyed will be determined based
on the results of a mutually satisfactory survey.
Requires Perry County to pay all costs associated with the
conveyance.
Specifies that the Secretary of Agriculture shall not have
to provide a covenant or warranty for the property under
the ``Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980.'' 21
H.R. 3444 (Rep. Huffman), ``Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management
in Forestry Act of 2025''
Section 2. Tribal Co-Management Plans of the Department of the
Interior.
Requires BLM, NPS, FWS, and BIA to develop a ``Tribal Co-
Management Plan'' within one year of the bill's enactment,
or, if a substantially similar plan already exists, to
adopt and update it within 120 days of the bill's
enactment. These plans must be developed in consultation
with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary's
Tribal Advisory Committee (chartered on November 11, 2021).
Specifies that the plans must identify any activity,
service, or function to be carried out on federally
administered lands that the Secretary of the Interior
determines need such action; are consistent with existing
land management plans; have historical, cultural, or
geographical significance to an Indian Tribe; and comply
with applicable environmental laws and regulations. Actions
also included in this identification are forest and
grassland planning and management, research and
development, restoration, and recreational service
activities.
Section 3. Tribal Co-Management Training.
Requires all DOI employees involved in developing and
carrying out a Tribal Co-Management Plan to complete a
training on Indigenous knowledge, the Tribal history of the
areas in which they work, as well as the federal
government's trust responsibility to Indian Tribes.
Allows the Secretary of the Interior to consult with
Indian Tribes.
Section 4. Authority to Enter into Agreements with Indian Tribes and
Tribal Organizations to Carry Out Certain Forest Service
Activities.
Requires the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the
Chief of the Forest Service, to enter, within four years,
into at least five co-management agreements with Indian
Tribes or Tribal organizations under this bill or existing
authorities (such as the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Program or the Agriculture Improvement
Act of 2018).22 Such agreements can cover forest
and grassland planning and management, research and
development, restoration, and recreational service
activities, as well as activities of the Heritage Program.
Specifies that co-management agreements must be carried
out on National Forest System (NFS) lands, consistent with
the applicable forest plan and applicable laws, and
relevant to an applicable Indian Tribe. Co-management
agreements cannot include activities that are nondelegable,
conflict with existing stewardship contracts, or require
Tribal reliance on a state government for necessary
resources.
Stipulates that Tribes must submit a formal proposal to
request an agreement, including a description of proposed
activities and identification of the relevant NFS lands.
Sets up considerations for the Secretary of Agriculture to
evaluate proposals from Tribes and requirements for denying
Tribal requests. In particular, the Secretary of
Agriculture is permitted to evaluate proposals on a best-
value basis and give special consideration to factors such
as historical Tribal ties to the land, landscape
characteristics, prior collaboration with USFS, access
needs, as well as Indigenous knowledge and skills.
Sets terms and conditions for payments to Tribes under co-
management agreements and sets parameters to reduce
paperwork requirements on Tribes that receive payments.
Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to review agreements
every five years, offering modifications or termination if
appropriate, and allows for earlier review at the request
of Tribes following a natural disaster.
Requires the publication of a non-exhaustive list of
activities in the Federal Register that are eligible for
co-management agreements every three years.
Requires a report to Congress every three years of the
accomplishments made using this authority.
Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to consult with
Indian Tribes on Indigenous knowledge and data sovereignty.
Allows Tribes to be considered USFS employees under the
Federal Tort Claims Act.23
Exempts activities under this section from the
requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
Specifies that nothing in this section affects the current
or future rights of any Indian Tribe or their authority to
enter into agreements, provides for the exclusive use of
NFS lands, or limits the Secretary of Agriculture from
entering into other agreements.
Authorizes $50 million in funding from fiscal year (FY)
2026 through FY 2030 to carry out this section.
V. COST
A formal cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
is not yet available for any of the bills.
VI. ADMINISTRATION POSITION
The Trump administration's position is unknown at this time.
VII. EFFECT ON CURRENT LAW (RAMSEYER)
H.R. 1045
https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bill-to-
law_119hr1045ih.pdf
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1045, UTAH WILDFIRE RESEARCH INSTITUTE ACT
OF 2025; H.R. 1655, WILDFIRE COMMUNICATIONS RESILIENCY ACT; H.R. 3187,
TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO CONVEY A PARCEL OF PROPERTY
OF THE FOREST SERVICE TO PERRY COUNTY, ARKANSAS, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES; AND H.R. 3444, TRIBAL SELF-DETERMINATION AND CO-MANAGEMENT IN
FORESTRY ACT OF 2025
----------
Tuesday, June 10, 2025
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom Tiffany
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Tiffany, Fulcher, Stauber, Bentz,
Amodei, Maloy, Kennedy; Neguse, Leger Fernandez, and Huffman.
Also present: Representatives Hill; and Hoyle.
Mr. Tiffany. The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will come to
order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to consider four bills:
H.R. 1045 by Representative Kennedy, Utah Wildlife--Wildfire
Research Institute Act of 2025; H.R. 1655, sponsored by
Representative Bentz, the Wildfire Communications Resiliency
Act; H.R. 3187, Representative Hill; H.R. 3444, by Ranking
Member Huffman, the Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management
in Forestry Act of 2025.
I ask unanimous consent that the following members be
allowed to participate in today's hearing from the dais: the
gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Hoyle.
Without objection, so ordered.
Under Committee rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority
Member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other
members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record
if they are submitted in accordance with Committee rule 3(o).
Without objection, so ordered.
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM TIFFANY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Mr. Tiffany. Today the Subcommittee on Federal Lands meets
to consider four pieces of legislation that will address our
Nation's forest health and wildfire crisis. Across the United
States more than 1.2 million acres have already burned this
year. As we enter the height of wildland fire activity over the
next few months, it is critical we advance solutions that will
restore forest health, cut red tape, and prevent catastrophic
wildfires.
We simply cannot afford to wait. That is why the House
passed the Fix Our Forests Act earlier this year on a
bipartisan basis. The Senate Agriculture Committee has already
held two hearings on FOFA, and I look forward to continuing to
work with my bipartisan Senate counterparts to send this bill
to the President's desk soon.
We cannot truly address the wildfire crisis unless we have
the right data. Representative Kennedy's Utah Wildfire Research
Institute Act of 2025 would create a new Southwest Ecological
Restoration Institute to help advance cutting-edge research
that can be applied on the ground to achieve true results. In
Utah more than 190,000 people live in areas considered to be at
high risk of fire. Despite this, Utah is the only four-corner
State without a Southwest Ecological Restoration Institute.
Representative Kennedy's legislation resolves this issue,
keeping Utahns safe and ensuring the State remains at the
forefront of wildland fire research.
I would also like to highlight Representative Bentz's
Wildfire Communications Resiliency Act. Across the country
there are tens of thousands of communications facilities at
risk of wildland fire. When those facilities are damaged or
destroyed on Federal lands, companies must undergo a lengthy
permitting process for these facilities to be repaired or
rebuilt. For the millions of Americans that rely on fast,
accessible communications infrastructure, these long wait times
are unacceptable.
Representative Bentz's legislation is a common-sense
solution to this problem, and would allow facilities damaged by
wildfires to be rebuilt quickly without undergoing duplicative
environmental reviews. This is not an exemption from any type
of environmental review. In fact, in order to be built in the
first place these facilities must undergo extensive
environmental analysis. The mere fact that communications
facilities are damaged during wildfires should not mean that
they are forced to undertake the same duplicative processes
that have already been completed.
In addition to this legislation, we will also consider
legislation from Representative Hill to convey a vacant Forest
Service building in Perryville, Arkansas to the local community
so they can better utilize it as an education and community
outreach center. This thoughtful legislation is a win-win, as
it reduces the burden on the Federal taxpayer and helps advance
President Trump's recent executive order on restoring common
sense to Federal office space management.
Finally, the Federal Lands Subcommittee will continue its
important work today elevating Tribes as full partners in
managing overgrown, fire-prone forests. In our last hearing we
heard testimony on Representative Hurd's FORESTS Act, which
provides several new tools to the Forest Service and Department
of the Interior to expand tribal stewardship of Federal
forests. I look forward to continuing that important discussion
today.
I would like to thank each of the sponsors of today's
legislation for bringing forward these thoughtful proposals. I
also want to thank all the witnesses for being here today, and
I look forward to the insights that each of you will bring to
this important discussion.
Mr. Tiffany. With that I will yield back and recognize the
Ranking Member, Mr. Neguse, for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE NEGUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
of our colleagues for joining us today for the hearing and, of
course, our witnesses.
We are here to consider, as the Chairman referenced, four
very different bills focused on wildfire research,
communications infrastructure, tribal self-determination, and a
land conveyance. Any meaningful response to the wildfire
crisis, which I agree is certainly a crisis, demands science-
driven solutions, strong interagency coordination, and respect
for Indigenous knowledge. The bills that we are considering
today offer some useful innovations in that regard, and so I
look forward to digging into the details.
Starting with H.R. 1045, the Utah Wildfire Research
Institute Act, I want to thank Representative Kennedy for his
effort to expand wildfire research capacity by including Utah
in the Southwest Ecological Restoration Institutes network. As
I am sure Mr. Kennedy is aware, the institute at Colorado State
University is in my district, and I have certainly seen
firsthand how these collaborative programs in Fort Collins have
supported forest health and wildfire preparedness, and so
grateful to my colleague for introducing this bill to add our
neighbor to the west to the network.
I do want to say, you know, for the record, that I am very
concerned, remain deeply concerned about the Forest Service's
proposed 55 percent funding cut to the Southwest Ecological
Restoration Institute's network programs for Fiscal Year 2025.
That threatens the institute programs, including in Fort
Collins and any other programs that might be added in other
States and the viability, I would think, of a new Utah
institute. And so I think that is important contextually for us
to be considering.
It is troubling to me that the Administration has proposed
completely eradicating the Forest Service's research budget.
Research is a fundamental pillar of our response to the
wildfire crisis that k our communities safe, promotes
forest health, and enhances resilience to climate change. This
requires sustained funding and investment in order to be
successful, and so I hope that that is an issue that we can
address in a bipartisan manner as we look into the possibility
of adding a new institute in Utah.
With respect to H.R. 1655, introduced by Representative
Bentz, this bill I understand he is very passionate about with
respect to rebuilding communication systems after wildfires,
and I certainly agree that rebuilding those systems after
natural disasters or wildfires is a real and urgent need. But I
have some concerns with respect to the legislation he has
proposed, and so I look forward to asking some questions of the
witnesses to further unpack that particular bill.
Next we are discussing H.R. 3187 from Representative Hill.
This bill proposes transferring a small parcel of Forest
Service land to Perry County, Arkansas. I want to thank the
Chairman and my colleagues for bringing the bill to our
Subcommittee through the regular order process. This is an
example of how a bill like this ought to be considered, and so
I look forward to hearing more about the transfer and
considering that bill.
Lastly, but certainly not least, we will be discussing H.R.
3444, the Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management and
Forestry Act, introduced by, of course, the Ranking Member of
our full Committee, Mr. Huffman. I am proud to be an original
co-sponsor of this bill and to support the legislation which I
think is thoughtful and insightful and forward-thinking. The
bill creates new tools for true partnerships between tribal
nations and Federal agencies, moving us beyond consultation
toward shared governance. It centers tribal voices in forest
planning and resource protection, reduces barriers that might
limit tribal co-management. Tribal co-management, of course, is
not new, but Congress can do a whole lot more to fulfill our
treaty and our trust responsibilities to tribal nations.
Mr. Neguse. So again, I am looking forward to considering
all of these bills today, and I will yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you to the Ranking Member.
And now I would like to recognize the Ranking Member of the
full Committee, Mr. Huffman, for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
Folks, I am pleased to see a really productive agenda for
us today. There are a number of bills here reflecting issues
where we ought to be able to do some things together on a
bipartisan basis, productive, common-sense, problem-solving
things. Some of these are easier than others, but it is a good,
productive agenda.
And Mr. Chair, I just want to say, as we continue to try to
advance work like this in this Committee, we have to also talk
about the disconnect going on right now because we can say that
we care about wildfire research, which I think we all do, we
can express a desire to get communications back up online after
wildfires and natural disasters. We can talk about these, you
know, rather routine land transfer issues that come up from
time to time. Those are important, too. I have had bills that
do that. And certainly, we can and we need to work together on
tribal co-management. But all of those things are a lot harder
to do when you are slashing budgets in a reckless way and
hollowing out this agency, and dismantling its ability to do
all of the things that I just mentioned and that these bills
all represent.
And unfortunately, there has just been too much silence
across the aisle in the face of some blatant disregarding of
the law and total chaos from these budget cuts and these
actions of DOGE, including at the Forest Service where funds
for everything from hazardous fuel management to research on
wildfire risk to recreation, all of it, was halted earlier last
year and the agency is still reeling from that disruption. Now,
I am relieved to see that some of the funds are starting to be
unfrozen. Some of it is starting to move again. But I am
concerned about the President's recently-released budget
proposal which would decimate the Forest Service, an agency
that Congress has actually under-invested in for too long.
You know, House Democrats, a couple of Congresses ago
prioritized investment in this agency through the Inflation
Reduction Act, the Great American Outdoors Act, and the
infrastructure law. But those investments and the future of the
agency are at risk right now, and we need to be talking about
that.
The President's recently-released budget cuts the agency's
budget by more than 75 percent, reduces salaries and expenses
for Forest Service employees by $342 million, eliminates the
Forest Service's research arm. Wildfire research is hard to do
when you are eliminating the agency's research arm. And it
zeroes out funding for the State, private, and tribal forestry
program. Now, that is going to be obviously an important
program if we are serious about tribal co-management.
State, Private, and Tribal Forestry is the office,
thankfully, that we have represented here today. So I look
forward to hearing from Deputy Chief Crockett about how this
critical aspect of the Forest Service will function without any
funding. Maybe he has some magical solution to that dilemma,
but I hope that he will call it the way it is. I don't think
that office and that program works without funding, and we
ought to be able to talk frankly about that. This is
particularly relevant as the Committee discusses bills like
mine to enhance tribal co-management and self-determination.
New authorities and programs simply cannot function without
staff and without resources to back them up.
Mr. Huffman. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Ranking Member Huffman. We are
going to now move on to our first panel, which consists of
members who are sponsoring today's legislation. And Mr.
Huffman, you are on a roll. You get another 5 minutes with H.R.
3444 to be able to explain your bill.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Give me a chance to
catch my breath. But now I get to talk about my bill. I want to
thank the majority for including it in this hearing. This is,
of course, my Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in
Forestry Act.
Just a few weeks ago the Subcommittee brought together a
distinguished panel of witnesses who were leaders in tribal
forestry. And each of them I have had the privilege of working
with and developing my legislation. Every one of them
importantly emphasized that tribal forestry should be a
bipartisan issue for this Committee, and I am certainly
committed to making that so.
I look forward to hearing from Mr. Tripp today. He has
years of experience working with the Karuk Tribe's Natural
Resources Department. Mr. Tripp knows that in my district the
Karuk Tribe and others have been leaders in forest management,
the integration of cultural burns, use of Indigenous knowledge
on lands with generations of history that remain deeply tied to
them. I hope my Republican colleagues and Chair Westerman will
continue to work with us and with Tribes and tribal
organizations, all of whom share the goal of bringing Tribes
into the decision-making process when it comes to managing our
Federal lands.
Tribal nations have played a key role in land management
since time immemorial, and it is past time for the Federal land
management agencies to start working with them as equal
partners, to take a step towards fulfilling our trust and
treaty obligations to tribal nations. That is what my
legislation is all about. My bill ensures that Tribes not only
have a seat at the table, but a meaningful stake in decisions
affecting their communities.
The legislation provides that the Forest Service will have
additional standalone authority to enter into co-management
agreements with Tribes to carry out critical wildfire
prevention work and other forest management activities on our
national forest lands. It gives Tribes more authority to build
on the work that they have already been doing through the
National Forest System to improve water quality, preserve
culturally significant species and places, and manage invasives
and sustain natural resources.
These are broadly-supported policy goals, but we are all
well aware on this Committee that work that is needed in our
national forest is often halted by devastating wildfires and
other natural disasters. This legislation provides more
flexibility to adjust co-management plans in the event of that
kind of disruption, and also allows Tribes to request review
from the Forest Service to keep things on track.
I am glad to see the Forest Service here today, as this
legislation builds on critical tribal consultation that USDA
and the Forest Service have conducted to expand and advance
self-determination in forestry. Many of the ideas proposed
during that consultation are reflected in my legislation.
To help Congress address the wildfire crisis, USDA worked
with the Department of the Interior, with Homeland Security,
and FEMA to establish the Wildland Fire Mitigation and
Management Commission, and that commission developed
comprehensive recommendations for improving wildfire response.
One key recommendation was for the USDA to have standalone
authorities to enter into co-management agreements with tribal
nations. That is exactly what my bill does.
The bill would also enhance tribal stewardship at Interior
by directing each land management agency to collaboratively
develop tribal co-management plans with the Secretary's Tribal
Advisory Committee. So the focus of the bill clearly is
forestry and the Forest Service, but we think that the tribal
co-management policies there will become models for all public
land agencies, and we want to get the Interior agencies moving
forward with their own planning and tribal co-management
activities as well.
All Department of the Interior employees would be involved
in developing or implementing tribal co-management plans. They
would also be required to receive culturally appropriate
training, including education on the trust relationship between
the Federal Government and tribal nations.
So I hope my colleagues share our commitment to delivering
for Tribes and their forestry goals. I urge them to work with
us on this legislation to ensure that the Administration's
actions do not irreparably harm Indian Country.
Mr. Huffman. And I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you to the Ranking Member. And I
would now like to recognize the gentleman from Oregon, Mr.
Bentz, for his statement in regards to H.R. 1655.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLIFF BENTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and
members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
present my bill, H.R. 1655, the Wildfire Communications
Resiliency Act. This legislation was crafted as a direct
response to the devastating wildfire seasons we have seen in
the West, and in Oregon in particular.
In 2024, just last year, nearly 2 million acres burned in
Oregon, and approximately 900,000 of those acres are in my
district alone sadly, setting new records. Many of these fires
struck rural communities where communication infrastructure is
already limited, and the loss of even a single tower or line
can strand entire counties from emergency resources during
these disasters. My district includes 20 such counties.
In too many cases the process of rebuilding or upgrading
communication systems has been delayed not due to technical
difficulty, but because of bureaucratic rules and regulations.
Federal environmental reviews under NEPA and the National
Historic Preservation Act often take months or sometimes years
to complete, even when the project simply seeks to replace or
harden equipment destroyed in a federally declared disaster
area. This is not just inefficient, it is dangerous and
absolutely makes no sense.
H.R. 1655 provides a targeted exemption from these reviews
for communication infrastructure projects located within the
footprint of a declared wildfire disaster. It applies only to
facilities that are replacing damaged structures or upgrading
systems for greater fire resilience. This bill is not about
circumventing environmental protection; it is about enabling
our communities to recover and prepare without unnecessary and
duplicative hurdles that cost time, money, and, in some cases,
lives.
This bill represents a common-sense approach to disaster
recovery, which is grounded in the reality that our communities
are facing growing threats from increasingly severe wildfires.
In times of emergency people need reliable, necessary, and
essential communication networks that are up and operational to
coordinate rescue efforts, receive emergency alerts, and
maintain contact with loved ones. Bureaucratic permitting
delays and lengthy environmental assessments should not hinder
this urgent and necessary restoration process.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions, and I yield
back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative Bentz. I now
recognize Representative Kennedy for 5 minutes on H.R. 1045.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE KENNEDY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Dr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to the Ranking
Member Neguse, as well as my fellow Committee members. I am
grateful to be here to present my bill, which is a simple bill.
As an oversight to the 2004 Southwest Forest Health and
Wildfire Prevention Act, Utah was not included in the Four
Corners States--Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado were included
in--the opportunity to have a Southwest Ecological Restoration
Institute, or SWERI Institute, and this bill amends that Act
with inclusion of Utah as a State that has one of these
institutes.
And I am actually pleased to report that in 2024 the State
legislature actually authorized the formation of an institute
housed at Utah State University, and also provided start-up
funding already for that institute. And my witness later on,
Dr. Yocom, will testify to the fact that the State of Utah is
ready to stand up that institute.
Utah has a unique geographic boundary that reflects
important interests as to fire prevention, and this Southwest
Ecological Restoration Institute will provide the research that
would allow us to prevent these devastating wildfires that
plague not only the West generally, but Utah specifically.
We are looking forward to collaborating with partners to
improve forest management and wildfire prevention efforts, and
there is a long history of successful and innovative resource
management and planning programs in Utah that add value to
wildfire prevention and restoration efforts across the West.
So, Mr. Chair, thank you for allowing this bill to be heard
in this Committee, and I look forward to the support of not
only my friends on one side of the aisle, but bipartisan-wise,
wildfires are not a partisan issue and I am grateful for the
opportunity to sponsor this problem-solving legislation that
can help us move forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and with that I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you, Representative Kennedy. We are
going to move on to our second panel now.
Let me remind the witness that under Committee rules you
must limit your oral statement to 5 minutes, but your entire
statement will appear in the hearing record.
To begin your testimony please press the on button.
We use timing lights. When you begin the light will turn
green. At the end of 5 minutes the light will turn red, and we
will ask you to complete your statement. You are a veteran at
this.
I would now like to introduce Mr. John Crockett, Deputy
Chief of State, Private, and Tribal Forestry at the United
States Forest Service.
Deputy Chief Crockett, welcome, and you are recognized for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN CROCKETT, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STATE, PRIVATE, AND
TRIBAL FORESTRY, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Crockett. Good morning, and thank you, Chair Tiffany,
Ranking Member Neguse, members of Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to speak about the four
public land bills with Forest Service equities under
consideration today. My name is John Crockett, and I have been
a career employee with the U.S. Forest Service for over 28
years, and I currently serve as the Deputy Chief of State,
Private, and Tribal Forestry, as well as the Acting Deputy
Chief for the National Forest System.
The Forest Service manages over 193 million acres of
Federal lands for a variety of uses that support sound
management of lands held in other ownerships, works at the
forefront of science to improve the health of our Nation's
forests. And today I look forward to discussing a range of
bills that touch on the agency's work. While our interest
varies across the bills, our testimony expresses a willingness
to work with the Committee on the ideas put forward.
H.R. 3187 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to convey a
small parcel of Forest Service land on the Ouachita National
Forest to Perry County, Arkansas. The Forest Service supports
this conveyance and the local benefits it will generate, and
looks forward to working with the Committee to ensure the
parcel's prompt conveyance.
H.R. 1655, the Wildfire Communications Resiliency Act,
would ensure the construction and repair of communication
facilities following major disasters such as wildfires, and
they are not subject to certain reviews under the National
Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation
Act. We support this bill and the goal to expedite approvals to
rebuild communication infrastructure following natural
disasters, and welcome the opportunity to share feedback on
small technical matters.
H.R. 1045, the Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of
2025, would amend the Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire
Prevention Act of 2004 to require the establishment of an
additional Southwest Ecological Research Institute, or SWERI,
in the State of Utah. The Forest Service supports this bill,
this bill's goal to work closely with State universities on
research that helps to address the challenges faced in the
Great Basin and the Interior West.
H.R. 3444, the Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management
in Forestry Act of 2025, would authorize the Secretary of
Agriculture to enter into agreements with Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act title 1 contracts
with Indian Tribes, tribal organizations to perform certain
activities, services, or functions, including management
decisions on National Forest System lands that are
historically, culturally, or geographically relevant to Tribes.
The Forest Service supports shared stewardship with tribal
nations, where overlapping interests with the National Forest
System lands exist, including work to reduce wildfire risk,
restore landscapes following natural disasters, and preserve
cultural heritage.
We also strongly support the bill's proposed extension of
the Federal Tort Claims Act to tribal employees carrying out
activities under these contracts or agreements. However, there
are components of the bill we hope to discuss further with the
Committee.
First, we respectfully note that title 1 of the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act applies to
programs that are operated for Tribes at the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and Indian Health Services. The statues are not a
funding vehicle. Rather, it transfers the administration of the
qualifying programs that are operated to the benefit of the
Tribe from the Federal agency to the Tribe. Since the Forest
Service does not provide direct services to Tribes, we hope to
discuss the compatibility of this statute with the agency's
work.
Second, we hope to work with the Committee to further
understand what is meant by the term ``management decisions''
in order to ensure the language meets congressional intent.
And lastly, we hope to further discuss the potential of
this bill's positioning the Forest Service as the arbiter of
competing interests with Tribes within the same landscape, a
role that could be difficult for the agency to fulfill.
This concludes my testimony, and thank you for the
opportunity to share the Forest Service views, and I look
forward to answering any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crockett follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Crockett, Deputy Chief, State, Private and
Tribal Forestry
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Forest Service to provide testimony on four bills: H.R. 1045--
``Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of 2025'', H.R. 1655--``Wildfire
Communications Resiliency Act'', H.R. 3187--``To require the Secretary
of Agriculture to convey a parcel of property of the Forest Service to
Perry County, Arkansas, and for other purposes'', and H.R. 3444--
``Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in Forestry Act of
2025.''
H.R. 1045, Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of 2025
H.R. 1045, the ``Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of 2025,''
would amend the Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of
2004 to require the establishment of an additional research institute
in the state of Utah. This would be in addition to three existing
institutes in Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico that are collectively
known as the Southwest Ecological Restoration Institutes (SWERIs).
The Forest Service understands the Committee's interest in pursuing
additional research in the Great Basin and Interior West, including on
the spread of invasive plants and associated fire danger, with the goal
of increasing knowledge and dissemination of challenges and successes
in regional forest and rangeland management.
While the Forest Service supports the goal of working closely with
state universities to address challenges facing the Great Basin and
Interior West, the FY 2026 Budget does not include resources to provide
financial assistance to the SWERIs.
H.R. 1655, Wildfire Communications Resiliency Act
H.R. 1655, the ``Wildfire Communications Resiliency Act,'' would
provide that construction, rebuilding, or hardening of communications
facilities following a major disaster or wildfire--related emergency
are not subject to certain reviews under the National Environmental
Policy Act and National Historic Preservation Act.
The Forest Service recognizes the serious impacts that utility
interruptions have on the health and welfare of communities and
individuals and prioritizes post-disaster restoration of communications
and other critical services on National Forest System lands. The agency
supports an expedited approval process for rebuilding communications
facilities that have been damaged or destroyed by a major disaster or
emergency event and supports the opportunity presented in H.R. 1655 to
efficiently address facility repairs. Specifically, the Forest Service
strongly supports the exclusion of communications facilities damaged by
a wildfire disaster or emergency from being considered a ``major
Federal action,'' and therefore not subject to requirements to prepare
certain environmental reviews or be considered an undertaking under 54
U.S.C. 300320. We welcome further discussion with the Committee on some
small technical concerns to ensure that the proposed legislation can
accelerate agency efforts.
H.R. 3187, To require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey a parcel
of property of the Forest Service to Perry County, Arkansas,
and for other purposes
H.R. 3187 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to convey a parcel
of Forest Service land on the Ouachita National Forest to Perry County,
Arkansas.
The Forest Service recognizes the potential local benefits this
conveyance could provide and supports the conveyance of the Perryville
office building and 0.81-acre parcel to Perry County. The Forest
Service has engaged Perry County in direct sale conversations since
2022 and would like to work with the Committee to ensure the prompt
conveyance of this parcel.
H.R. 3444, Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in Forestry Act
of 2025
H.R. 3444, the ``Tribal Self-Determination and Co-Management in
Forestry Act of 2025,'' would direct the Secretary of the Interior to
develop a Tribal Co-Management Plan for Bureaus within the Department
and would require related training for staff. It would also authorize
the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into agreements and contracts
with Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations to perform certain
activities, services, or functions, including management decisions, on
National Forest System lands that are consistent with applicable land
management plans and carried out on land that is historically,
culturally, or geographically related to the relevant Tribe. Activities
could include forest and grassland planning and management,
restoration, recreational services, Forest Service Heritage Program
activities, and research and development activities.
The Forest Service supports robust shared stewardship with Tribal
Nations where overlapping interests exist. We work closely with Tribal
Nations on forest management, wildfire mitigation, resource
restoration, risk reduction, and cultural preservation efforts. We
actively engage in shared stewardship through a dozen existing
authorities, including the Tribal Forest Protection Act and Good
Neighbor Authority.
We defer to the Department of the Interior on Sections 2 and 3 of
the bill, which direct the development of a Tribal Co-Management Plan
and related staff training for the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and
Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Section 4 authorizes the Forest Service to enter into agreements or
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act Title I
contracts with Tribes and Tribal organizations to carry out activities,
services, or functions--including permissive activities and management
decisions--on Forest Service lands that are identified as historically,
culturally, or geographically related to relevant Indian Tribes. The
bill requires the Secretary to publish in the Federal Register, every
three years, a non-exhaustive list of activities eligible for inclusion
in those agreements, in consultation with Tribes. The bill sets forth
time frames and factors that the Forest Service must consider before
entering into the agreements, such as valid existing rights of other
parties, and identifies special factors for consideration, such as
Tribal citizen access and indigenous knowledge. The bill allows a Tribe
to amend its agreement to undertake additional activities in response
to a natural disaster. The bill also extends the Federal Tort Claims
Act coverage to Tribes carrying out the agreements or contracts.
The Forest Service supports the inclusion of formal consultation,
the incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge, and the extension of the
Federal Tort Claims Act to Tribal employees carrying out activities
under the agreements.
The Forest Service welcomes a discussion with the sponsors to
address certain legal and implementation matters related to Section 4
to ensure that Congressional intent is effectuated. More clarity on
which management decisions are eligible for contracting would be
beneficial, particularly since the agreements must be consistent with
federal law and non-delegation principles.
As the sponsors may know, Title I of the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act is not a funding vehicle, but rather a
statutory mechanism that transfers Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian
Health Service programs operated for Tribes over to Tribal control. We
welcome a discussion on the applicability of that statute's terms for
the Forest Service context and its interplay with the annual funding
provisions from the Self-Governance Act in the bill. We also welcome a
discussion concerning the Forest Service's authority to protect Tribal
data sovereignty in order to carry out the goals contained in the bill.
Lastly, Section 4 of the bill requires that activities carried out
on Forest Service land be historically, culturally, or geographically
related to the Tribe without requiring a temporal nexus to the
landscape. When there are overlapping Tribal interests with complicated
histories over the same landscape this provision places the Forest
Service in a position as arbiter of those interests. We welcome a
discussion with the sponsors on this issue. We defer to the Department
of the Interior if any portions of Section 4 that may affect its
bureaus and agencies.
Conclusion
That concludes the Forest Service's testimony. Thank you again
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to present USDA's views on this
proposed legislation.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Deputy Chief Crockett. I am now
going to recognize members for 5 minutes of questioning, and we
will start with the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Chairman Tiffany.
Deputy Chief Crockett, thank you for joining us today. Can
you expand upon the challenges the Forest Service faces in
conducting proper forest management after a wildfire or another
disaster?
And how long does it typically take for the Forest Service
to rebuild infrastructure on land that has been affected?
Mr. Crockett. So thank you for the question. How long does
it take to rebuild infrastructure? It depends on the nature of
the damage, the type of facility that was in place, and so I
will give you a general bookmark of time frames. So on the
minimum side, a couple of months if everything is pretty simple
and everything works out with it.
On the other side of that bookend would be anywhere----
Mr. Stauber. Deputy Chief Crockett, when you say,
``everything works out'', define ``works out.''
Mr. Crockett. Sure. So if it is----
Mr. Stauber. You know where I am going with that.
Mr. Crockett. Yes. So I am trying to basically give you the
simplest answer on it because it is complicated.
So when I say, ``works out,'' if the alignment of the
people capacity in the Forest Service is there, if the proposal
itself is pretty straightforward, meaning there is not any back
and forth that we need to do with the entity, so that is what I
mean, if it works out.
Mr. Stauber. So if it doesn't work out, what is the longest
time frame you have seen?
Mr. Crockett. We are required by the Mobile Now Act to have
everything either approved or denied within 270 days. So that
is the maximum extent of it.
Mr. Stauber. And during your career with the Forest
Service, have these timelines increased or decreased to rebuild
infrastructure after a wildfire?
Mr. Crockett. I would say they vary. There are some
infrastructure facilities that we are able to expedite, and
there are other ones that take an extended amount of time for
some of the reasons that I just named.
Mr. Stauber. And before I yield my time to Chairman
Tiffany, I just wanted to double check. I think I know this
answer. Wildfires don't adhere to NEPA, do they?
Mr. Crockett. No, they don't.
Mr. Stauber. Deputy Chief Crockett, thanks for your
testimony. I am going to yield the balance of my time to
Chairman Tiffany.
Mr. Crockett. Thank you.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you to the gentleman from Minnesota.
To the question that he was doing there you said it is
complicated. Give us a little bit more about why this is
complicated, that it takes so much time.
Mr. Crockett. Yes, so the complicating factors is depending
on what level of staffing we have on hand to be able to accept
the proposal and run it through our review process. So the
people side of it, the complexity of the actual proposal
itself, like I said earlier, if it is pretty straightforward,
should be able to move forward without any delays. But if there
are unforeseen matters that either the proposal didn't plan
for, then that could adjust the time frames.
Mr. Tiffany. How could Congress help uncomplicate it?
Mr. Crockett. I think what you named around, because in
your opening statement you mentioned that the analysis has been
done already if a communication site is in place. And so why
duplicate that effort of having to do the additional analysis?
As long as a check to make sure there is not a changed
condition with it, I think the proposal that you put in place
will help expedite the decision-making process.
Mr. Tiffany. More generally speaking, not just on this
specific proposal by, I think we are referring to
Representative Bentz, how could Congress help uncomplicate your
work?
Mr. Crockett. So I would say timelines are definitely
helpful. And if--obviously, it is our goal to expedite anything
that comes in. But if we had timelines that we had to adhere
to, that would be helpful. Obviously, having the right
resources of staff capacity and funding.
Mr. Tiffany. So in other words, tightening timelines might
be a good thing?
Mr. Crockett. Sure.
Mr. Tiffany. That is all the questions I have.
Representative Stauber, do you have any? I will yield back to
you. It is your time if you have any further follow-up.
Mr. Stauber. No, I think that if you had a structure on
Forest Service land that you had to rebuild, same structure,
same footprint, would you have to do a NEPA review?
Mr. Crockett. We would do I would say a proficiency check
on it to make sure that there are not any changed conditions
from when that facility was originally put in place to now. So
that is what I would name----
Mr. Stauber. So no changes, no NEPA review?
Mr. Crockett. No changes, no additional analysis.
Mr. Stauber. Right. Like a categorical exclusion?
Mr. Crockett. So a CATEX on the small end, yes, we should
be able to run it through, and get public comment and
perspectives on it, and move it forward.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Deputy Chief Crockett.
I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now recognize the
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Neguse.
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Deputy Chief Crockett, for your testimony, for
being here again before us. And I want to preface my comments
and my questions with a statement, which is to say that I am
very grateful for your service to the agency and to our
country, and I hope you consider my questions in that light
because I know you are a career official and doing your part to
serve within the Forest Service. But as you can probably
imagine, there are many of us here on the dais who have deep
concerns about the political leadership of the Department of
the Interior and the Forest Service and the Department of
Agriculture. And as a result, given that you are----testifying
in front of us today, I want to be sure that we have an
opportunity to ask you some questions in that regard.
So my colleague, my Republican colleague, Mr. Tiffany,
mentioned uncomplicating your work, I think, was the phrase
that he used. And your response was something to the effect of
having more resources for, you know, the folks on your team to
do their jobs would be helpful. You are aware that President
Trump has submitted his Fiscal Year 2026 skinny budget, and you
have reviewed that. Is that fair?
Mr. Crockett. Yes, I am aware of it.
Mr. Neguse. OK. You are aware that his budget calls for the
elimination of the State, Private, and Tribal Forestry branch
of the United States Forest Service.
Mr. Crockett. Yes, I am aware of it.
Mr. Neguse. What is your title?
Mr. Crockett. I am the Deputy Chief for State, Private, and
Tribal Forestry.
Mr. Neguse. So the President, President Trump, proposes to
eliminate the branch of the Forest Service that you lead.
Mr. Crockett. That is correct.
Mr. Neguse. Yes. I think that it is patently unfair for the
Trump administration to ask you to come testify in front of
this Committee on behalf of a budget that eliminates the very
branch of the agency that you lead. And I am not the only one
who feels that way.
A variety of State leaders from across the country,
Republicans and Democrats, have condemned the proposed cuts
that this budget would make to wildfire programs, to the work
that is being done by the hard-working people at the Forest
Service, including in the branch that you lead, the hard-
working civil servants who do their jobs every day. I know you
are aware of this, Deputy Chief, but I think it is important
for my colleagues to understand this, particularly those of us
who serve on this Committee who also serve on the
Appropriations Committee, because they are going to have a
chance in the markups to potentially change this.
You are aware of the State and volunteer fire capacity
programs in your division, of course.
Mr. Crockett. That is correct.
Mr. Neguse. You are aware that that is being eliminated by
the Trump administration, proposed to be eliminated in the
budget?
Mr. Crockett. I am aware of that, yes.
Mr. Neguse. You are familiar with the Forest Stewardship
Program?
Mr. Crockett. Yes, sir, right.
Mr. Neguse. That is another program that President Trump
has proposed to eliminate entirely.
Mr. Crockett. Yes.
Mr. Neguse. You are familiar with the Joint Fire Science
Program?
Mr. Crockett. I am.
Mr. Neguse. This funds wildfire research in response to the
needs of land managers in Nevada and Utah and Colorado and
Idaho. You are aware of that?
Mr. Crockett. Yes.
Mr. Neguse. And you are aware that President Trump is
proposing eliminating it?
Mr. Crockett. That is correct.
Mr. Neguse. OK. So Mr. Chairman, one way to uncomplicate
the Deputy Chief's job may be to ask President Trump not to
propose eliminating the sub-agency that he leads and all of the
various fire programs that I just mentioned, the impacts of
which, by the way, will be most pronounced in the States that
are represented by the members on this Committee, including my
own in Colorado. I don't think that is an unfair request, and I
say this in good faith.
I mean, again, there are members of this Committee who
serve on the Appropriations Committee. This is a live item. It
is up for debate right now, right? House Republicans could
reject some of these cuts and save these programs, they could
save the division that you lead. We only need two or three.
I am very supportive of Utah's effort to expand the SWERIs
programs, the institutes that exist in Fort Collins, and to add
Utah to it. But Deputy Chief, you have said in your testimony
here the Fiscal Year 2026 budget does not include resources to
provide financial assistance to these institutes. Right?
Mr. Crockett. That is correct.
Mr. Neguse. So I am trying to understand. My colleagues
from Utah are proposing to add an institute while
simultaneously this Congress is going to defund all of the
institutes.
And I guess what I would just ask of Mr. Kennedy because,
again, I am very supportive, and I would just ask for your
partnership. Let's get your legislation across the finish line,
but let's also make sure that your institute and that
Colorado's institute and Arizona's, that they are funded.
Otherwise, what is the point of adding new institutes if we are
going to defund them? That is my request, I should say.
And I yield back. Thank you for the Chairman's indulgence.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now would like to
recognize Ms. Maloy for her 5 minutes of questioning.
Ms. Maloy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Crockett, thank you for being here. I only have a
couple of questions for you, and they should be really easy.
They are things you probably already know really well.
As my colleague mentioned, my colleague from Utah sitting
here to my right has introduced a bill to create a wildfire
research institute in Utah. There are three that already exist
in the Four Corners area. Can you speak to the value of those
wildfire research institutes to the Forest Service, and
improving management practices, and especially any way that
they have helped the Forest Service localize management
practices and make them specific?
Mr. Crockett. Yes, so thank you for the question. And yes,
we do value our relationships with the existing SWERIs, and
know that the Utah SWERI would provide a benefit from the
research perspective, particularly around collaboration and
helping our land managers upstream of the fire risk do the
analysis that is needed to determine how to mitigate that fire
risk. And that happens at the local level within the existing
SWERIs, and I would assume that same level of collaboration
would happen with the Utah SWERI.
Ms. Maloy. Are there any examples where having local
research from a SWERI has allowed Forest Service to improve
management and localize it, instead of just having Federal,
national, country-wide policies?
Mr. Crockett. I think the examples in both Colorado from
the Ranking Member as well as in Arizona, where the research
institutions work hand in hand with the local forest leaders,
either the forest supervisors or forest fire managers, to get
the localized perspective on the research that is happening and
impacting that State or that forest. And I have seen examples
on the ground firsthand, particularly around Flagstaff,
Arizona, on where that has benefited the local forest.
Ms. Maloy. OK, thank you. I look forward to seeing that
happening in Utah.
And Mr. Bentz's bill that speeds up rebuilding
communications infrastructure after a wildfire, I am excited to
see that in here. I represent a State that has wildfires and is
majority of the land managed by the Federal Government. Can you
talk about the challenges your agency faces in permitting
rebuilding critical infrastructure, particularly utilities,
after a wildfire?
Mr. Crockett. Yes, so some of those challenges I did name
earlier, but what I would say is the bottom line for us is
faster approval of permitting processes allows communication
sites to get back up and be utilized for their intended
purposes.
Ms. Maloy. I have also gone through this process before
after wildfires in Utah, where we have utility infrastructure
that has been damaged and we are just trying to rebuild it the
same way, in the same path, and the process itself becomes a
prohibition to getting things done. And I am excited that we
are looking at ways to improve that and work together.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady yields. I now recognize Ms.
Leger Fernandez for 5 minutes.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
so much for joining us here today.
I need to tell you my heart goes out to you. It really
does, because you are trying to do your job knowing that there
is a starvation budget that has been proposed by Trump that is
yet to be opposed by the Republicans, which basically will make
it impossible for you to do your job.
And, you know, Mr. Kennedy, I joined with my Ranking Member
in welcoming a research center in Utah. We have one in New
Mexico.
And, you know, Representative Maloy, you are absolutely
right. These research centers are so key, especially as we try
to recover from wildfires. We have a horrific wildfire in New
Mexico. We have, luckily, a research center right in the middle
of where that fire was, and so I welcome it. And I hope you do
join us in supporting funding, because it doesn't do us any
good to authorize something and then take away the funding for
it.
There was a bipartisan letter on May 16, 2025. We did get
some Republicans to support it. Hopefully you will, as well,
because that called for robust funding for these facilities. So
I know the letter already went out, and I know we asked the
Utah delegation to join us, but hopefully you will because it
doesn't do us any good to authorize these programs if we don't
fund them.
You know, Deputy Chief Crockett, it takes boots on the
ground to actually fight the fires and do the work you have
been asked to do. Is that correct?
Mr. Crockett. That is correct.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yes, it takes boots in the forest to
actually manage those forests. Is that correct?
Mr. Crockett. That is correct.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. And it takes dollars to fund the
people who wear those boots. Is that correct?
Mr. Crockett. That is correct.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. And, you know, I am looking at the
testimony that you provided to this Committee, I think it was 2
years ago, approximately 2 years ago. And it is such a contrast
with the testimony that you have provided today. Because if we
look at that testimony, Tiffany was Chair. You came here
telling us all the great work you were able to do. In fact, you
pointed out that for the tribal programs that we are talking
about today, you had testimony precisely about this kind of
bill. Do you recall that testimony?
Mr. Crockett. I do recall that testimony.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yes, and you pointed out that you were
able to triple the number of agreements from 19.8 million to
$68 million, right? What did it feel like to be able to do that
kind of work, to get the money to actually do those kinds of
agreements?
Mr. Crockett. It was exciting to work with the Tribes and
see that they had not only the ability to do the work, but it
was funded. So yes, that was exciting.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. So what are you going to do if the
starvation budget is what actually gets passed into law when
you have now potentially four institutes and no money? How will
you decide, like, which child goes hungry?
Mr. Crockett. I don't know if I have an answer for you on
that question, ma'am.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Will you be able to fund the four
institutes, if we become four institutes, with the money that
is in the proposed budget?
Mr. Crockett. As it is currently proposed in the budget,
the funding system that funds the institutes would be
transferred to the Department of the Interior because it is our
hazardous fuel budget line item that funds the institute, and
the President's budget does propose moving that funding
structure to the Department of the Interior.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. But there isn't enough money,
regardless of where it is. There isn't enough money to do the
research. There isn't enough money to actually carry out these
programs. I think that is part of the problem.
I mean, in contrast to your testimony 2 years ago, where
you were excited, talking about these new things that were
happening, and I need to tell you. Coming from, you know, the
rural district that I represent, and it has those beautiful
lands that are in Utah, that are in Montana, that are in
Colorado, that are in all of these Western States, in fact,
many of these Western States are represented by Republicans,
but they seem ready to cut off, you know, cut it off at the
knees so those boots won't be on the ground to be able to
conduct the work that they need to do. And I just don't know
how we are going to do this. We are running out of time.
But I will point out that that earlier funding increases,
they were bipartisan. It included the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law. And these bipartisan efforts are being defunded now at a
rate that is alarming, given the wildfires that we are going to
be seeing raging across the beautiful forests that I call home.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Fulcher [presiding]. The gentlelady's time is expired.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Kennedy for 5 minutes.
Dr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And Deputy Chief, thank you very much for being with us
today. We appreciate your work on a daily basis, as well as you
coming up here to visit with us.
So the SWERI institutes were created by Congress to support
science-based forest restoration. How does the U.S. Forest
Service coordinate with these institutes to align Federal
forest management priorities with academic research and on-the-
ground capacity?
Mr. Crockett. Yes, thank you for the question. And as I
mentioned earlier, well, as an extension of what I mentioned
earlier, research institutions are an extension of our ability
to do work within the Forest Service. So obviously, we have a
research wing within the agency, but the universities provide
an extended perspective around wildfire research, one that we
find valuable to the local resource.
Dr. Kennedy. Can you give me any examples of research that
has been useful to you in your 28-year career? I think you said
28 years.
Mr. Crockett. Yes.
Dr. Kennedy. So over the years, what sort of research have
the SWERI institutes given to the Forest Service that has
helped you in doing the job that you do?
Mr. Crockett. Yes. So the SWERIs and the one in Arizona
that I mentioned earlier, particularly around ponderosa pine, a
species that is fire-dependent, they have provided research to
help us better understand what management activities would look
like to help reduce risk and severity from the ponderosa pine
ecosystem.
Dr. Kennedy. And you did mention, I think earlier, that----
permitting reform is an important part of something that would
help the institutes help with policy formulation that would
actually help us in Washington, D.C. help you do your job.
Mr. Crockett. I would say that the short answer is yes, but
most of the work that they are doing is at the local level,
helping those local managers make better decisions, which
obviously helps us at the national level because they have
policy in place that allows them to do their job better.
Dr. Kennedy. Thank you very much.
And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.
So the commentary on the other side is complete, so I want
to just take a minute here before we close, Mr. Crockett, and
ask you, first of all, thank you for your testimony. And after
this exchange, what goes through your mind that we missed that
needs to be brought up?
I will focus on the solution side, but what have we missed?
What do you recommend? Last-minute air time.
Mr. Crockett. Sure, thank you for the question and the
opportunity to provide a perspective.
I think the Committee has named a dynamic tension between
the authorizers and the appropriators, and I have a role in
being in the middle of that, of having to make some tough
decisions around our budget and our resources, and to fund or
not to fund SWERIs, or to do the work or not to do the work.
For me, I think that is the key point that has been named, that
tension between the authorizers and the appropriators, and the
differences in the branches of government between legislative
and executive.
Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Crockett, thank you very much.
Mr. Crockett. Thank you.
Mr. Fulcher. OK. With that, if there are no further
questions, we will now move on to our third panel.
I would like to thank the witness for his valuable
testimony, and you are dismissed.
While the clerk resets our witness table, I will remind the
witnesses that under Committee rules they must limit their oral
statements to 5 minutes, but their entire statement will appear
in the hearing record.
I would also like to remind our witnesses of the timing
lights, which will turn red at the end of your 5-minute
statement, and to please remember to turn on your microphone.
As with the second panel, I will allow all witnesses to
testify before member questioning.
OK, first I would like to introduce The Honorable Larry
Blackmon, Judge of Perry County, Arkansas.
Judge Blackmon, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. LARRY BLACKMON, JUDGE, PERRY COUNTY,
PERRYVILLE, ARKANSAS
Judge Blackmon. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Neguse, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. I appreciate the chance to speak in support of
my Congressman representing French Hill's legislation, H.R.
3087, to require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey a
parcel of property of the Forest Service in Perry County,
Arkansas, and for other purposes.
Perry County is a small rural county located in central
Arkansas with approximately 10,000 residents. Perry County is
the fourth smallest county in Arkansas, and the third by total
land area. Roughly 16 percent of the residents in Perry County
live in poverty. The county is 77 percent forested, resulting
in limited economic opportunities. As a result, we have limited
budget to invest in our community, which means we must find
ways to maximize the value of every dollar.
For years, Perry County has sought to purchase the U.S.
Forest Service property located at 1069 Fourche Avenue in
Perryville, Arkansas. Unfortunately, we have been unsuccessful
in this effort. As mentioned earlier, Perry County has limited
resources and a high poverty rate, and the Forest Service
building in the small county has been unable to purchase it
outright.
Trying to purchase the U.S. Forest Service building has
been a lengthy process. After Perry County requested an
appraisal, the U.S. Forest Service took over a year to complete
the assessment of the building. During that year's time frame,
the U.S. Forest Service had a new roof installed.
Unfortunately, the roof soon began leaking due to faulty
insulation by the contractor. Once Perry County received the
appraisal value, we were no longer able to afford to purchase
the building and make the necessary repairs to make it usable.
The necessary improvements for the U.S. Forest Service will
include installing a new roof, repairing all the exterior wood
facing that has been damaged by the leaking roof. The water
damage from the leaking roof includes ceiling damage on the
interior of the building, repairs to the trusses, and most of
the flooring will need to be replaced. While the U.S. Forest
Service building will require repairs and updates, the county
does have funding to make the necessary substantial repairs
from the water damage. However, Perry County cannot make these
improvements and purchase the building outright.
Once Perry County restores the U.S. Forest Service
building, it will support key programs. Specifically, the
building will house local organizations currently struggling
with limited space and inadequate resources which restrained
them from serving the community effectively. If Perry County is
able to acquire the Forest Service Building, we can move the
County Extension Office, Conservation Office, and 4-H into the
building. Currently, none of these organizations have
sufficient space to conduct the necessary activities to fully
serve the people of Perry County.
In addition, these organizations do not have access to
meeting rooms or kitchen facilities for cooking classes, which
includes classes about healthy eating habits. One of the most
significant benefits to Perry County is that the 4-H would have
a permanent home. Currently, 4-H is forced to meet wherever
they can find a suitable location.
Local support for Perry County acquiring this building is
strong, which includes but is not limited to the City of
Perryville, Perryville Mayor John Rowland, the Perry County
Chamber of Commerce, Perry County Fair Association, State
Representative Mary Bentley, and State Senator Terry Rice.
In conclusion, H.R. 3187 will help Perry County create
lasting benefits for our community. H.R. 3187 will enable
numerous organizations to serve Perry County in a greater
capacity than they currently can due to a lack of office space,
meeting rooms, and storage areas for equipment that they need
to assist the citizens of Perry County.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be happy
to answer any questions you or the other members may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Judge Blackmon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Judge Larry Blackmon
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I
appreciate the chance to speak in support of my Congressman, Rep.
French Hill's legislation, H.R. H.R. 3187, To require the Secretary of
Agriculture to convey a parcel of property of the Forest Service to
Perry County, Arkansas, and for other purposes.
Perry County is a small, rural county located in central Arkansas,
with approximately 10,000 residents. Perry County is the fourth
smallest county in Arkansas and the third-smallest by total land area.
Roughly 16 percent of residents in Perry County live in poverty. The
county is 77 percent forested, resulting in limited economic
opportunities. As a result, we have a limited budget to invest in our
community, which means we must find ways to maximize the value of eve1y
dollar.
For years, Perry County has sought to purchase the U.S. Forest
Service property located at 1069 Fourche Avenue in Perryville,
Arkansas. Unfortunately, we have been unsuccessful in this effort. As
mentioned earlier, Perry County has limited resources and a high
poverty rate, and the small county has been unable to purchase it
outright. Trying to purchase the U.S. Forest Service building has been
a lengthy process. After Perry County requested an appraisal, the U.S.
Forest Service took over a year to complete the assessment of the
building. During that year's timeframe, the U.S. Forest Service had a
new roof installed. Unfortunately, the roof soon began leaking due to
faulty installation of the new roof by a contractor. Once Perry County
received the appraisal value, we could no longer afford to purchase the
U.S. Forest Service building and make the necessary repairs to make it
usable.
The necessary improvements for the U.S. Forest Service Building
include installing a new roof and repairing all the exterior wood
facing that has been damaged by the leaking roof. The water damage from
the leaking roof includes ceiling damage on the interior of the
building, repairs to the trusses, and most of the flooring will need to
be replaced. While the U.S. Forest Service building will require
repairs and updates, our county does have the funding to make the
necessary substantial repairs from the water damage. However, Perry
County cannot make these improvements in addition to purchasing the
U.S. Forest Service building outright.
Once Perry County restores the U.S. Forest Service building, it
will support key programs. Specifically, the building will house local
organizations currently struggling with limited space and inadequate
resources, which restrain them from serving the community effectively.
If Perry County is able to acquire the U.S. Forest Service building, we
can move the county Extension Office, Conservation Office, and 4H into
the building. Currently, none of these organizations has sufficient
space to conduct the necessary activities to fully serve the people of
Perry County. In addition, these organizations do not have access to
meeting rooms or kitchen facilities for cooking classes, including
classes about healthy eating habits. One of the most significant
benefits to Perry County is that 4H would have a permanent home.
Currently, 4H is forced to meet wherever they can find a suitable
location.
Local support for Perry County acquiring this building is strong,
which includes, but is not limited to, the City of Perryville,
Perryville Mayor John Roland, the Perry County Chamber of Commerce, the
Perry County Fair Association, State Representative Mary Bentley, and
State Senator Terry Rice.
In conclusion, H.R. 3187 will help Perry County and create lasting
benefits for our community. H.R. 3187 will enable numerous
organizations to serve Perry County in a greater capacity than they
currently can due to a lack of office space, meeting rooms, and storage
areas for equipment needed to assist the citizens of Perry County.
Chairman Tiffany, that concludes my testimony. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Judge Blackmon. I now recognize the
gentleman from Utah, Mr. Kennedy, for 1 minute to introduce our
next witness.
Dr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chair Pro Tem. I am grateful to
be here to talk more about my Utah Wildfire Research Institute
Act of 2025 and to introduce Dr. Yocom, who is the director of
the Utah Forest Restoration Institute and an Associate
Professor in the Wildland Resources Department at Utah State
University.
Dr. Yocom has contributed to numerous peer-reviewed journal
articles on wildfire and forest management, and has been
invited across Utah and the country, as well as the world, to
give presentations on her work. As a subject matter expert, she
currently serves on the board of the Southern Rockies Fire
Science Network, a committee member of the Association for Fire
Ecology Education Committee, and an advisory committee member
for the Great Basin Fire Science Exchange.
I thank Dr. Yocom for joining us here today, and I look
forward to your testimony later.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. I now recognize Ms.
Larissa Yocom, Director of the Utah Forest Restoration
Institute. Ms. Yocom, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LARISSA YOCOM, DIRECTOR, UTAH FOREST RESTORATION
INSTITUTE, LOGAN, UTAH
Dr. Yocom. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I am
Larissa Yocom, the Director of the Utah Forest Restoration
Institute and an Associate Professor of Forest Fire Ecology and
Management at Utah State University. I am excited about the
opportunity to discuss the Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act
of 2025, a bill introduced by Representative Kennedy, with a
companion bill, S. 457, introduced by Senator Lee.
This bill would amend the Southwest Forest Health and
Wildfire Prevention Act of 2004 to require the establishment of
an additional Southwest Ecological Restoration Institute under
the Act in the State of Utah. Currently, three institutes exist
in Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado.
Fire plays an essential role in keeping diverse Western
forests healthy and has wide-ranging benefits. For example,
aspen trees thrive after fire, and wildlife often seek out
recently burned areas. However, early settlers viewed fire as a
destructive force that resulted in the waste of valuable
timber. For decades forest managers were remarkably successful
in preventing and suppressing fire, while communities expanded
into fire-prone areas. About 25 years ago, large and
destructive megafires started to become a regular occurrence.
At present we are experiencing more destructive fire, spending
more resources on fighting fire, and dealing with other
cascading effects such as fire-induced damage to water supplies
and rising homeowner insurance costs. Everyone is looking for
answers.
How can we better manage our forests, keep communities
safe, and reduce the risks for millions of Americans who depend
on forests for services such as timber, clean air, recreation,
hunting, grazing, and water supply?
In 2004 Congress created the Southwest Ecological
Restoration Institutes, or SWERI, to serve as the critical
connector of science and practice to restore forest health and
reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. Hosted at
universities to stay on the cutting edge of research, the SWERI
work side by side with managers, policymakers, and communities
to ensure that locally relevant science and technology reaches
the people who need it most. The SWERI have worked for 20 years
to demonstrate that adaptive and active management is an
effective tool for improving outcomes.
Although there is still plenty of work to do, we have
learned a great deal in the last two decades about how to
reduce fuels through mechanical thinning of trees and
prescribed fire, as well as developed science-based fire
response strategies that are safer and more effective. We have
learned more about how to engage residents to garner support
for active forest management. We have learned about how to
support collaboration across boundaries so that important fire
prevention work does not get hung up in the courts. We have
learned about how to manage areas that have recently burned to
restore vegetation and prevent erosion into waterways.
Much of this learning has been developed and applied on the
ground under the leadership of the SWERI, through their place-
based monitoring and timely and nimble production of actionable
ecological and social science. The work of the SWERI is so
distinct and impactful that Utah wants a SWERI of their own. In
2024 the Utah State Legislature authorized the formation of an
institute housed at Utah State University, provided start-up
funding, and named it the Utah Forest Restoration Institute. I
was named the Director in January of this year.
Initial responses in Utah to the formation of the institute
have been universally positive from partners including the
State of Utah, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest
Service, the Department of the Interior Bureau of Land
Management, tribal representatives, non-profits, and policy-
makers.
Everyone acknowledges that we have a fire problem, and we
need focused attention on solutions. Utah's mix of forests and
woodlands are unique. We will have different fire patterns from
our neighboring States, and our solutions will need to be
unique, too. Frankly, we are behind many of our neighbors in
determining which management tools work best for Utah's forests
and woodlands, and how to engage residents and decision-makers.
Establishing a SWERI in Utah is critical to help us get ahead
of the curve before it is too late. The benefits of
establishing a SWERI in Utah include healthier forests, safer
communities, a stronger workforce, and a more informed public.
We have been collaborating closely with the other SWERI to
ensure that we are additive and complementary to the SWERI
program, and will enhance their work across the Intermountain
West. Federal designation of a SWERI in Utah will need to be
followed by sufficient appropriations for the new Utah
Institute and sustained appropriations for the existing SWERI.
Sustained Federal funding allows the SWERI to reliably and
swiftly respond to the substantial and increasing need for
science-based solutions, for reducing the risk of catastrophic
wildfire, and sustaining the health and vitality of our forests
in the Intermountain West, in alignment with the broader intent
of the Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of
2004.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee.
I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Yocom follows:]
Prepared Statement of Larissa Yocom, Director, Utah Forest Restoration
Institute & Associate Professor, Department of Wildland Resources, Utah
State University
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and all members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I am
Larissa Yocom, the Director of the Utah Forest Restoration Institute
and an Associate Professor of Forest Fire Ecology & Management at Utah
State University. I am excited about the opportunity to discuss the
``Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act of 2025'' bill, introduced by
Representative Kennedy with a companion bill S. 457 introduced by
Senator Lee. This bill would amend the Southwest Forest Health and
Wildfire Prevention Act of 2004 to require the establishment of an
additional Southwest Ecological Restoration Institute under the Act in
the state of Utah. Currently three institutes exist in Arizona, New
Mexico, and Colorado. Passing this bill into law is an important
initial step to benefit the people of Utah, as well as our neighboring
states, by adding to an existing program with proven results
accelerating science-based forest management and reducing wildfire
risk.
Fire plays an essential ecological role in keeping diverse Western
forests healthy and has wide--ranging benefits. For example, aspen
trees thrive after fire, and wildlife often seek out recently burned
areas. However, early settlers viewed fire as a destructive force that
resulted in the waste of valuable timber. For decades, forest managers
were remarkably successful in preventing and suppressing fire, while
communities expanded into fire-prone areas. Then, about twenty-five
years ago, large and destructive megafires suddenly started to become a
regular occurrence. At present, we are experiencing more destructive
fire, spending more resources on fighting fire, and dealing with other
cascading effects such as fire-induced damage to water supplies and
rising homeowner insurance costs. Everyone is looking for answers. How
can we better manage our forests, keep communities safe, and reduce the
risks for millions of Americans who depend on forests for services such
as timber, clean air, recreation, hunting, grazing, and water supply?
In 2004 Congress created the Southwest Ecological Restoration
Institutes, or SWERI, to serve as the critical connector of science and
practice to restore forest health and reduce the risk of catastrophic
wildfire. Hosted at universities to stay on the cutting edge of
research, the SWERI work side by side with managers, policymakers, and
communities to ensure that locally relevant science and technology
reaches the people who need it most. The SWERI have worked for 20 years
to demonstrate that adaptive and active management is an effective tool
for improving outcomes. Although there is still plenty of work to do,
we have learned a great deal in the last two decades about how to
reduce fuels through mechanical thinning of trees and prescribed fire,
as well as developed science-based fire response strategies that are
safer and more effective. We have learned more about how to engage
residents to garner support for active forest management. We have
learned about how to support collaboration across boundaries, so that
important fire prevention work does not get hung up in the courts. We
have learned about how to manage areas that have recently burned, to
restore vegetation and prevent erosion into waterways. Much of this
learning has been developed and applied on the ground under the
leadership of the SWERI, through their place-based monitoring and
timely and nimble production of actionable ecological and social
science.
The work of the SWERI is so distinct and impactful that Utah wants
a SWERI of their own. In 2024, the Utah state legislature authorized
the formation of an institute housed at Utah State University, provided
start-up funding, and named it the Utah Forest Restoration Institute. I
was named the Director in January of this year. Initial responses in
Utah to the formation of the institute have been universally positive,
from partners including the state of Utah, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Forest Service, the Department of Interior Bureau of Land
Management, tribal representatives, non-profits, and policymakers.
Everyone acknowledges that we have a fire and forest resilience
problem, and we need focused attention on solutions. Utah's mix of
forest and woodlands are unique. We have different fire patterns from
our neighboring states and our solutions will need to be unique too.
Frankly, we are behind many of our neighbors in determining which
management tools work best for Utah's forests and woodlands, and how to
engage residents and decision makers. Establishing a SWERI in Utah is
critical to help us get ahead of the curve before it is too late.
The benefits of establishing a SWERI in Utah include healthier
forests, safer communities, a stronger workforce, and a more informed
public. We have been collaborating closely with the other SWERI to
ensure that we are additive and complementary to the SWERI program and
will enhance their work across the Intermountain West. Federal
designation of a SWERI in Utah will need to be followed by sufficient
appropriations for the new Utah institute and sustained appropriations
for the existing SWERI. Sustained federal funding allows the SWERI to
reliably and swiftly respond to the substantial and increasing need for
science-based solutions for reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire
and sustaining the health and vitality of our forests in the
Intermountain West, in alignment with the broader intent of the
Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of 2004.
Thank you for the opportunity to address this Subcommittee. I would
be happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Tiffany [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Yocom. I now
recognize Mr. Bill Tripp, Director of Natural Resources and
Environmental Policy for the Karuk Tribe Department of Natural
Resources.
Mr. Tripp, welcome back. You have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF BILL TRIPP, DIRECTOR OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, KARUK TRIBE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES, ORLEANS, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Tripp. [Speaking Native language.] My name is Bill
Tripp, and I am the Director of Natural Resources and
Environmental Policy for the Karuk Tribe, located along the
Klamath River in far northern California.
Ninety-eight percent of Karuk original territory is
collocated with National Forest System lands. I have been
working in the field of natural resources and environmental
policy for 32 years. I offer this testimony in my capacity as
the Karuk tribal delegate to the Intertribal Timber Council,
and more specifically, my role as Chair of the ITC Fire
Subcommittee. I have been asked to speak to the Tribal Self-
Determination and Co-Management in Forestry Act.
As with any such topic, there is nuance to be addressed and
a duty of care to be observed to avoid harm, such as a
potential diminishment of tribal sovereignty or perceived
extinguishments of any reserved, retained, or other tribal
rights. Given this, I will convey why it is so important that
we get this right.
I have been using fire for traditional and cultural
purposes since I was 4 years old. My great-grandmother gave me
a task. And when I saw the inherent problems and accomplished
it as instructed, she agreed to tell me our stories of
creation. These stories speak to our relationship to the
natural world, and our responsibility to do the things inherent
to Karuk culture. One of these things is our world renewal
ceremonies on Offield Mountain.
Following the big burn of 1910, as the Weeks Act was being
discussed in Congress, the Western governors conditioned their
support with a call for an authority for governments to
coordinate in regard to carrying out wildland fire management
programs. Meanwhile, in Karuk territory, the ceremonial burning
of Offield Mountain happened for the last time due to the
results of this suppression mindset.
In recent years the State of California has passed a suite
of laws that accommodate and enable Indigenous fire use as
something that is conducted under the inherent sovereign
authority of Indian Tribes. The same authority founded in the
Weeks Act and that was originally used to stamp out our
Indigenous fire use practices can and should be used to enable
Federal deference to such laws at the State and tribal level.
This is where the agreement structure offered in the Tribal Co-
Management and Self-Determination in Forestry Act becomes key
to its success.
Both this bill and the FOREST Act, if done well, would
solidify existing opportunities, reinforce congressional
intent, clarify the fact that Forest Service should be sharing
decision-making authority more broadly, and provide specific
connections to the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act to promote efficient program delivery while
respecting and preserving tribal sovereignty. But all too
often, agencies and bureaus are reluctant to share management
and decision-making with Tribes based on their own narrow
readings of statutory authority.
Federal officials regularly rely on oversimplified
interpretation, and avoid engaging in co-creating new models of
shared management. An example of this is explicit in the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, where Congress
found that the parental and community control of the
educational process is of crucial importance to Indian people.
The ceremonial burning of Offield Mountain is supposed to be
burned by 3 young men that might not even be 18 years old, but
already have a career's worth of burning under their belt
through our Indigenous education systems. The Federal agencies
demand, however, that the National Wildfire Coordinating Group
training standards are followed before a person can burn.
It is critical that legislation does not extinguish unceded
rights of Indian people and acknowledge tribal sovereign
authority over inherent tribal activities.
Some Tribes are interested in taking over implementation of
Federal program services, functions, and activities. Other
Tribes are most interested in the exercise of their Indigenous
knowledge, practices, and belief systems without burdensome
process. We at the Karuk Tribe are pursuing a combination of
the two.
In closing, I thank you all for inviting me to testify here
today. I look forward to working to help ensure this dialog
progresses in an appropriate way that fosters bipartisan
support and enables proactive stewardship that truly moves the
needle in addressing the wildfire crisis.
[Speaking Native language.] Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tripp follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bill Tripp on the Tribal Self Determination and
Co-Management in Forestry Act of 2025 House Subcommittee on Federal
Lands
Ayukii--My name is Bill Tripp and I am the Director of Natural
Resources and Environmental Policy for the Karuk Tribe's Department of
Natural Resources. The Karuk Tribe is located along the Klamath River
in far Northern California and our Aboriginal Territory is over a
million acres, which stretch into Oregon. 98% of Karuk Aboriginal
Territory is co-located with National Forest System lands. I have been
working in the field of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy for
32 years, and using fire as a management tool for the last 47 years. I
now serve as the Intertribal Timber Council (ITC) Fire Subcommittee
Chair, the ITC principal to the Wildland Fire Leadership Council (WFLC)
leadership team for the WFLC Western Region, and was the Tribal
Government Representative appointed to the bipartisan Wildland Fire
Mitigation and Management Commission. I offer this testimony in my
capacity as the Karuk Tribal delegate to the Intertribal Timber Council
(ITC) and more specifically my role as Chair of the ITC Fire
Subcommittee.
I have been asked to speak to the Tribal Self Determination and Co-
Management in Forestry Act, introduced by Rep. Jared Huffman, who
represents part of the Aboriginal Territory of the Karuk Tribe. This
bill is based on the unanimous recommendations (number 29 and 30) of
the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission,\1\ which urged
Congress to provide the Forest Service with authority to enter into
agreements to share or transfer decision-making authority with a Tribe
or defer to the decisionmaking authority of a Tribe. Specifically, this
bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into agreements
with Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations for the performance of
certain activities of the Forest Service. It also recognizes the
authority to the Forest Services to defer to Tribal decisions in their
exercise of reserved, retained, and other similar rights. I would urge
this Committee to take a bipartisan approach to this topic, as there
has also been a related and complementary bill (Fostering Opportunities
to Restore Ecosystems using Sound Tribal Stewardship Act, or the
FORESTS Act, sponsored by Rep. Hurd). I know there is great interest on
both sides of the aisle in working to overcome some of the adversity
Tribes have faced in our tribal homelands for generations, while we
enable proactive stewardship, restore sense of purpose in our tribal
communities, and protect homes, lives and the environment from
catastrophic wildfire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On Fire: A Report of the Wildland Fire Mitigation and
Management Commission (September 2023), Recommendation 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with any such topic, there is nuance to be addressed and a duty
of care to be observed to avoid harm, such as a potential diminishment
of tribal sovereignty or perceived extinguishment of any reserved,
retained, or other Tribal rights.\2\ Given this, I will convey why it
is so important that we get this right, provide some historical
context, call out some specific distinctions critical to success, and
offer help in working to refine this and other bills aimed at enabling
tribal co-management of federal lands moving forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Additional information on these topics can be found in Good
Fire II, available here: https://
karuktribeclimatechangeprojects.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/
03/good-fire-ii-march-2024.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been using fire for traditional and cultural uses and
purposes since I was 4 years old. I built a fire in the woodstove one
morning so it would be warm when my great grandma woke up. When she
heard me, she came out and told me if I was going to be playing with
fire, I was going to do something good with it. At that point, she (my
great grandmother) took me outside, gave me a task and went back
inside. When I solved its inherent problems and accomplished it as
instructed, she agreed to tell me the Arrarrahi ipikyav, or our stories
of creation. These stories speak to our relationship to the natural
world, and our responsibility to do the things inherent to Karuk
culture. One of these things is our World Renewal Ceremonies, part of
which take place on Offield Mountain. By the time I was 8 years old I
had completed all the lessons. She asked me: now that you have been
given this knowledge, what are you going to do with it? I responded in
saying that I was going to use my life to help bring fire back to the
people, as that would be the one thing that we would have to do if we
were to live in a survivable homeland in the future.
Following the Big Burn of 1910, as the Weeks Act was being
discussed in Congress, the Western Governors conditioned their support
of the bill with a call for the authority for state and federal
governments to coordinate in regard to carrying out Wildland Fire
Management Programs. The Federal and State governments retained their
distinctions as constitutional government entities in doing so, but
disregarded the sovereignty and rights of Tribes. As a result of Tribes
not being at the table, the misguided singular focus on suppression
spread across both the state and federal land management agencies.
Meanwhile, in Karuk territory, the ceremonial burning of Offield
mountain happened for the last time due to results of this suppression
mindset. I have spent the last 32 years of my life trying to build
relationships so we can restore conditions conducive of revitalizing
this essential ceremonial burning practice. In addition to having
direct impacts on our religious freedoms and ability to practice our
ceremony, the importance of enabling cultural burning cannot be
overstated. There is currently no plan for maintaining all of the acres
that we are diligently working with our federal partners to restore,
and cultural burning is the answer. It is the only way we can
sustainably and reliably make our landscapes safer in the face of
wildfire, and prevent the loss of lives, property, and timber resources
among other things.
In recent years, in an attempt to address the ``wildfire problem,''
the State of California has passed a suite of laws that accommodate and
enable Indigenous fire use as something that is conducted under the
inherent sovereign authority of Indian Tribes.\3\ These laws give
deference to Tribal law in the conduct of inherently tribal activities
such as cultural burning. It would be game-changing to see similar
authorities at the federal level. In fact, the same authority founded
in the Weeks Act that was originally used to stamp out our Indigenous
fire use practices, can and should be used to enable federal deference
to such laws at the state and Tribal level. This is where the agreement
structure offered in the Tribal Co-Management and Self Determination in
Forestry Act becomes a key to its success. The authority for the Forest
Service to enter into an agreement that recognizes the differences
between federal actions and those inherently tribal is paramount to our
ability to revitalize our cultural identity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Senate Bill 310, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/
billNavClient.xhtml?bill id=202320240SB310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear to me that Congress needs to lead on this issue. Recent
Forest Service testimony on the FORESTS Act,\4\ made clear to me that
the agency does not understand at all levels that they can and should
be working with Tribes in ways unique to their specific situations.
They do not seem to understand what kinds of new authorities are needed
to make it all work. From my experience, the agreement templates used
by the Forest Service are not structured in a manner conducive of a
government-to-government relationship, but it should not be difficult
to make the appropriate adjustments if properly approached. Conversely,
it is important to realize that we have come a long way in our
relationship building efforts, and it will be difficult to keep up the
pace, let alone increase the scale of our proactive management impact
moving forward with continued budget and capacity cuts. Efficiencies
are better gained with directional focus that when carried out under an
umbrella of fear and confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=417109.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both this bill and the FORESTS Act,\5\ if done well, would solidify
existing opportunities, reinforce Congressional intent, clarify the
fact that the Forest Service should be sharing decisionmaking authority
more broadly, and provide specific connections to the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) to promote
efficient program delivery while respecting and preserving Tribal
Sovereignty. As successful as our co-stewardship partnerships have been
in regard to progressing the Forest Service management responsibility
in our Karuk homelands, more efficient means are possible with
consistent and reliable funding mechanisms like self-governance
compacting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=417109.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than two decades ago, the USDA Forest Service recognized that
the ISDEAA was indeed a government-wide mandate, but believed that
there were no authorities specific to the Forest Service to enable
adequate implementation by the agency. This bill's inclusion of
additional 638 mechanisms is another key component. But all too often
agencies and bureaus are reluctant to share management and decision-
making with Tribes based on their own narrow readings of statutory
authority as well as overblown concerns with the sub-delegation
doctrine and what constitutes an ``inherently federal function.'' While
those legal doctrines occasionally present legitimate considerations,
federal officials regularly rely on them as an over-simplified and ill-
considered interpretation and avoid engaging and co-creating new models
of shared management. Congress needs to push the agencies to do better.
An example of this is explicit in ISDEAA,\6\ where Congress found
that parental and community control of the educational process is of
crucial importance to the Indian people, and that Tribes will never
give up this right. For my Tribe, education is not just what is taught
in the classroom, but in the intergenerational transfer of knowledge
about our management systems and the places where we are from. Much of
Karuk Aboriginal Territory now falls within the jurisdiction of both
the Forest Service and the Tribe, including a sacred mountain called
Offield Mountain. The ceremonial burning of Offield Mountain or
Ikxariyatuuyship, meaning the spirit people's mountain, is supposed to
be burned by three young men that might not even be 18 years old, but
already have a careers' worth of burning under their belt through our
Indigenous education systems. Because of Forest Service policies, I
have been denied this part of my Indigenous education, but it is still
my inherent responsibility to ensure others are not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 46 U.S.C. Sec. 5301(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The federal agencies demand, however, that National Wildfire
Coordinating Group training standards are followed before a person can
be part of any burning on federally administered lands, meaning that
their experiential learning cannot even begin until they are at least
18 years old. This constitutes an extinguishment of our right to
religious freedoms and is in direct conflict with the findings in
ISDEAA. Conversely, an Agency cannot extinguish a right, nor can a
State. It is critical that legislation involving co-management or co-
decision-making does not extinguish the unceded rights of Indian
people, and acknowledges pathways whereby Agencies can defer to tribal
sovereign authority over inherently tribal activities. This bill
reinforces this in communicating the premise that the Forest Service
can already accommodate and enable our access to conduct our Indigenous
fire use practices either as part of, or completely separate from the
delivery of federal programs.
Any effective co-management legislation must recognize that Tribes
are asking to undertake at least two different kinds of activities on
lands administered by federal agencies. Some Tribes are interested in
taking over the implementation of federal programs, services,
functions, and activities. In doing so, they will generally follow
federal policies (such as the National Wildfire Coordinating Group
qualifications), but also have access to federal benefits (such as tort
coverage and federal dollars). But other Tribes are most interested in
mechanisms whereby the federal government can accommodate the exercise
of their Indigenous knowledge, practice, and belief systems without
burdensome processes. Cultural burning is one of these practices: it
should not be assumed to be prescribed fire, or required to be
completed in the context of federal program delivery. We at the Karuk
Tribe are pursuing a complementary combination of the two, and view
this bill as an important means for enabling this.
These two different pathways require two different approaches.
Congress should efficiently permit and resource Tribes in undertaking
federal programs, services, functions, or activities. And Congress
should also empower what should be considered ``inherently tribal''
activities as well. It also matters whether components involve the
significant use of federal funds and are therefore required to be
included in an approved land management plan. Who we are and the
ceremonial practices of individual Indian people are not required
components of such a plan, but perhaps should rather be analyzed as the
related actions of a separate sovereign when included in federal land
management planning activities.
In closing, I thank you all for inviting me to testify here today.
I look forward to working with your staff as requested to help ensure
this dialogue progresses in an appropriate way that fosters bipartisan
support, and enables proactive stewardship that truly moves the needle
in addressing the wildfire crisis. Getting this done right for the
long-term is more important than getting this done quickly. I hope each
and every one of you work to progress this dialogue in the states you
represent so we can utilize the strengths of federal, state, and tribal
sovereignty in a way that does not constitute an extinguishment of our
rights. The very term ``Indigenous'' means ``natural to place'', and in
gaining a mutual understanding of what that can and should mean to us
all, I look forward to preserving our indigeneity while finding lasting
solutions to the wildfire problem.
Yootva (thank you).
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Tripp. I now recognize Mr. Greg
Andreas, General Manager at Ponderosa.
Mr. Andreas, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GREG ANDREAS, GENERAL MANAGER, PONDEROSA
TELEPHONE, O'NEALS, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Andreas. Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, Vice
Chairman Kennedy, and members of the Subcommittee, I thank you
for the opportunity to testify today. I am Greg Andreas,
General Manager at Ponderosa Telephone in California.
I have over 30 years of executive leadership and
operational expertise across large, multi-national corporations
and rural telecom providers. My background has provided me with
the opportunity to lead several small rural operators and
understand firsthand the unique challenges rural communities
and their providers face in keeping subscribers connected.
Ponderosa Telephone covers 1,650 square miles, from the
foothills of the Central Valley to the spine of the Sierra
Nevada mountains, covering Madera and Fresno Counties.
Ponderosa is in its sixth generation of family management. We
have over 7,200 customers and serve 10 tribal communities. This
good work has not been easy, however. We average four homes per
mile of network built, navigating through rough terrain that is
difficult and costly to serve.
Serving our neighbors, friends, and families is not easy.
This work rests atop a unique mix of commitment to our
community, an entrepreneurial spirit, and effective government
policies and programs that help make and sustain the business
case for investing and continuing to operate in rural America.
Of course, there are a number of community-focused local
providers like Ponderosa all across the country. We are proud
members of NTCA, the rural broadband association which
represents about 850 rural, community-based broadband providers
that are deploying cutting-edge networks and offering advanced
communication services in rural America.
Turning to this important hearing, I have led critical
disaster recovery efforts to restore telecommunication
infrastructure in remote and underserved areas. I look forward
to sharing the many lessons I have learned in managing
restoration of communication networks following natural
disasters. This includes both my time in the Virgin Islands,
dealing with the impacts of Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017,
and more recently navigating the inefficient, outdated, and/or
under-staffed permitting processes in the wake of Ponderosa's
efforts to help our community recover from catastrophic
wildfires.
On September 4, 2020, the sixth largest wildfire was
recorded in California history, and it ravaged our community.
The Creek Fire burned nearly 400,000 acres and destroyed over
850 buildings. Our preliminary efforts have put total damages
and restoration costs at approximately $4.1 million.
Given my expertise with natural disasters, their impact on
communication networks, and the challenges of restoring those
networks, I am pleased to support Representative Bentz's
Wildfire Communication Resiliency Act under consideration
today. This legislation aims to tackle the significant delays
surrounding the restoration of a communication network after a
wildfire. Communities across the Nation will benefit from this
legislation being signed into law.
I would also encourage this Subcommittee to consider
similar legislation to address other natural disasters such as
hurricanes and tornadoes. Networks that get destroyed by
natural disasters but use the same rights-of-way and permitting
processes when first approved should be included in
legislation. Expediting NEPA and NHPA procedures in the wake of
natural disasters such as wildfires would allow providers to
swiftly replace damaged infrastructure, deploy permanent
communication solutions, and ensure that affected areas regain
access to essential services.
These reviews, while important for environmental and
cultural protections, are often lengthy and complex, even for
emergency restoration projects of facilities that had
previously been in the same area. Streamlined approvals are not
just a matter of regulatory efficiency; they are a lifeline for
communities trying to rebuild and stay connected.
Thank you again for providing me the opportunity to share
these thoughts with the Committee, and I look forward to
answering any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Andreas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Greg Andreas, General Manager,
Ponderosa Telephone
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, Vice Chairman Kennedy, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
at this legislative hearing. My testimony today will focus on H.R.
1655, the ``Wildfire Communication Resiliency Act.''
I am Greg Andreas, General Manager at Ponderosa Telephone. I have
over 30 years of executive leadership and operational expertise across
large multinational corporations and rural telecommunications
providers. My background has provided me with the opportunity to lead
several small rural operators and understand firsthand the unique
challenges rural communities and providers face in getting and staying
connected.
Ponderosa Telephone covers 1,650 square miles from the foothills to
the spine of the Sierra Nevada mountains covering Madera and Fresno
Counties. Ponderosa is in its sixth generation of family management,
starting in 1908. We have over 7,200 customers and serve 10 tribal
communities. This good work has not been easy, however. Ninety-five
percent of our Big Creek exchange is situated on federal land and
several of our other exchanges also traverse federally managed areas.
We average four homes per mile of network build, navigating through
rough terrain that is difficult and costly to serve. It has taken
extraordinary efforts to serve our neighbors, friends and families--and
this work rests atop a unique mix of commitment to our community, an
entrepreneurial spirit, and effective governmental policies and
programs that help make and sustain the business case for investing and
continuing to operate in rural America.
Of course, there are a number of community-based and community-
focused local providers like Ponderosa across the country. We are proud
members of NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association, which represents
about 850 rural, community-based broadband providers that are deploying
cutting edge networks and offering advanced communications services in
deeply rural communities. These operators collectively serve less than
five percent of the population of the United States but nearly thirty
percent of its landmass. Much like Ponderosa, these rural providers
operate in rural areas left behind decades ago when earlier efforts to
build out our nation's communications networks ignored them because
they were too sparsely populated.
Even before taking my current role at Ponderosa, I have
unfortunately had significant experience in managing responses to and
recovery from natural disasters. In 2017, while working for VIYA in the
United States Virgin Islands, two Category 5 hurricanes (Irma and
Maria) went overhead two weeks apart on September 6th and 20th
respectively. With seventy-eight percent of utility poles down, the
disaster recovery effort was extensive. It took a year to restore
internet and phone services to over ninety-five percent of customers
that were down.
Experiences like these have given me substantial insights into
critical disaster recovery efforts to restore telecommunications
infrastructure in remote and underserved areas, including the need to
work closely with local and federal stakeholders to ensure rapid
response, community safety and resilient rebuilding--which brings us to
this important hearing. I look forward to sharing ``lessons learned''
in managing recovery and restoration of communications networks
following natural disasters not only on federal lands that are under
the purview of this Subcommittee but also along interstate, state, and
local roadways, under railroad crossings, on poles, and/or in private
rights of way. These lessons have come from both my time in the Virgin
Islands dealing with the impacts of hurricanes on networks and more
recently navigating inefficient, outdated, and/or understaffed
permitting processes in the wake of Ponderosa's efforts to help our
community recover from catastrophic wildfires.
Wildfires pose a serious threat not only to lives and property but
also to critical communication infrastructure. As fires spread, they
can damage cell towers, fiber optic cables (that provide service
directly to residents and businesses as well as serving as backhaul for
wireless towers), and power lines--leading to widespread communication
outages. These disruptions can hinder emergency response efforts, delay
evacuation alerts, and isolate communities, especially the elderly,
from vital information. In rural and wildfire-prone areas especially,
the loss of connectivity can exacerbate already dangerous situations. I
am grateful for the opportunity to highlight how H.R. 1655 will
expedite the environmental and historical review processes to ensure
that swift and reliable networks are back up and running after a
catastrophic wildfire through restoration of critical communications
infrastructure.
2020 CREEK FIRE
On September 4, 2020, the sixth largest wildfire recorded in
California history ravaged our community. The Creek fire burned nearly
400,000 acres, destroyed over 850 buildings, and took well over four
months to contain. Firefighting costs exceeded $500 million dollars,
making it one of the costliest fires in California history.
Ponderosa experienced the loss of several cell towers due to the
fire, along with significant damage to our North Fork, Auberry, Shaver
Lake, Big Creek, and Wishon service areas. Portions of our buried fiber
were damaged, particularly at access points such as hand-holes and
pedestals where the fiber transitions above ground. In several
instances, damage occurred weeks after the initial fire, as residual
heat from smoldering tree stumps traveled through underground root
systems and ultimately comprised the network. Preliminary assessments
put total damages and restoration costs at approximately $4,137,000.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In the aftermath of the Creek Fire, several challenges emerged.
Restoration crews faced restricted access to impacted areas due to a
breakdown in interagency coordination among law enforcement, agency
officials, emergency management and utility stakeholders, delaying
restoration efforts. We installed temporary networks to continue
delivering critical communication services to first responders to
support emergency operations. Although it is not the topic of today's
hearing specifically, legislation to address interagency coordination
to combat these breakdowns may be useful in ensuring expedited
restoration. Restoration delays were further compounded by utility
companies conducting repairs without submitting 811 locate requests. As
a result, underground fiber cables were cut and conduits damaged,
exacerbating the scope of the restoration effort and causing
unnecessary disruptions to emergency communications for first
responders.
Once the immediate emergency concluded, we were required to comply
with all applicable federal, state, and tribal permitting regulations.
It has now been five years since the wildfire, and we are still
navigating the permitting process to rebuild completely in the affected
areas.
GENERAL BROADBAND PERMITTING ISSUES
Stepping back, obtaining access to federal lands for broadband
facilities installation (including restoration)--or otherwise obtaining
a permit when a project is considered a ``major federal action'' under
the National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA'') and/or a ``federal
undertaking'' pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act
(``NHPA'')--can be a time-consuming, expensive and cumbersome process.
Due to the nature of the areas served by many rural providers like
Ponderosa, we often have no alternative but to install fiber under
roads that cross land owned or managed by federal agencies such as the
Bureau of Land Management or the Forest Service. Rerouting even a small
segment of a project is frequently infeasible because of long
distances, difficult terrain, or the lack of obtainable easements on
nearby private land--if any exists at all. Moreover, many smaller rural
providers have no choice but to comply with the NEPA and NHPA processes
even if they are not installing facilities on federal lands; for
example, a project undertaken pursuant to a federal broadband grant
will also face the need to adhere to NEPA and NHPA. I am aware that
some NTCA members recount delays of up to two years in some cases to
apply for and obtain permissions to build. Indeed, even if a project
crosses federal land for only a short distance as part of a broader
deployment, the entire initiative can be delayed due to the need for
federal agencies approvals for that portion. Additional delays may
occur when states, even if they exempt providers from certain
environmental and historical regulations, use NEPA or NHPA requirements
to pause or impede restoration efforts.
While these processes are cumbersome under normal circumstances, in
the wake of a wildfire, they can lead to significant delays as
companies like Ponderosa work to reconnect their communities to the
outside world. In the aftermath of a wildfire, quickly restoring and
rebuilding communication infrastructure is essential to reconnect
communities, support emergency services, and enable recovery efforts.
Thus, any effort to streamline these processes as communities recover
from wildfires is essential.
H.R. 1655
I am pleased to support Representative Bentz's Wildfire
Communication Resiliency Act, under consideration today--and I thank
him for his leadership. This legislation aims to tackle the significant
delays surrounding the restoration of a communication facility after a
wildfire. Communities across the nation will benefit from this
legislation being signed into law. I would also encourage this
Subcommittee to consider similar legislation to address other natural
disasters such as hurricanes or tornadoes. Expediting NEPA and NHPA
procedures in the wake of natural disasters such as wildfires would
allow providers to swiftly replace damaged infrastructure, deploy
permanent communications solutions, and ensure that affected areas
regain access to essential services. As I previously stated, it has
been five years since the Creek fire, and we are still navigating the
permitting process to restore our networks. These reviews, while
important for environmental and cultural projections, are often lengthy
and complex--even for restoration projects of facilities that had
previously been in the very same area. Streamlined approvals are not
just a matter of regulatory efficiency--they are a lifeline for
communities trying to rebuild and stay connected.
Closing
By streamlining NEPA and NHPA review processes for communications
facilities on federal lands post-wildfire, providers like Ponderosa
will be better positioned to engage in the rapid restoration of
networks. In an era of increasingly frequent and severe wildfires,
ensuring fast, reliable deployment and restoration of communication
infrastructure is critical now more than ever. These networks are the
backbone of emergency response, public safety, and community
resilience.
Thank you again for providing me with the opportunity to share
these thoughts with the Committee. I look forward to working with this
Subcommittee, other Members of Congress, the federal agencies of
jurisdiction, and other stakeholders.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Andreas, and
now I will turn to questions from the Committee.
Mr. Fulcher, you have 5 minutes.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
panel for your comments and testimony today.
Mr. Andreas, with your testimony it was a prompting
reminder. I am going to take the first brief minute here and
just do a shameless pitch for one of my bills not on the docket
today, but I am going to pitch it anyway. In your testimony you
highlighted that even brief crossings of Federal land can stall
an entire broadband project for up to 2 years.
My bill, H.R. 2298, Reducing Barriers for Broadband on
Federal Lands Act, helps fix that by exempting previously
reviewed rights-of-ways on Federal land from NEPA and NHPA
reviews and, if enacted, this would alleviate the time-
consuming and expensive permitting process. So I wanted to just
pitch that out there.
But I am going to go with that to a question to you, Mr.
Andreas. I am from the State of Idaho, and many Idaho telecom
routes cross not just Federal and State, but also private lands
in one single project. And as you know, that triggers many
duplicative NEPA and NHPA reviews, and that drives up both time
and cost. So from your vantage point, what legislative or
administrative solutions can we employ to try to streamline
that permitting process?
Mr. Andreas. Well, I think that the number-one thing would
be to pass Congressman Bentz's bill to eliminate the need for
NEPA and NHPA.
In California we do have a significant number of State
regulations, as well, and there are times when State agencies
will utilize Federal programs like NEPA, and I will give you a
quick example. Caltrans, right now, when we are trying to build
in currently-used right-of-ways, we are exempted from NEPA. But
Caltrans will come along and say, ``We require you to follow
NEPA,'' or--and you have to follow it. You don't have a choice.
We are exempted from the State programs.
So there is sort of a battle between the State agencies,
like you said, and the Federal agencies. I don't know if there
is some type of pre-emption that could be done from Federal
level, but it is a battle that we fight pretty often.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that, and that is something that
we need to definitely take a look at. So thank you for your
input there. I am going to come back to you, Mr. Andreas. You
also described in your written testimony that it has been 5
years since the 2020 Creek Fire, if I have got this right, the
2020 Creek Fire, and you are still working through the
permitting to rebuild buried fiber in cell sites.
North Idaho again, I have to equate this to my own State,
but in north Idaho's pay-per-mile cost structure, it is often
fewer than four homes in a mile. What economic impact would a
5-year NEPA, NHPA exemption, an exemption, have on small rural
telecom providers' ability to reinvest in its network?
Mr. Andreas. Well, one of the biggest issues that we deal
with when we go through a wildfire situation like the Creek
Fire, our insurance will pay us like for like. So if we have
copper in the ground and it gets destroyed in a wildfire, or
aerial, our insurance company will pay us to replace the
copper, but will not pay us to replace it with fiber, which is
obviously the direction that we go. So we end up digging into
our own pockets to pay for that upgrade, if you will, to fiber.
So I think that focusing on some of those items would be
very helpful for us in situations where we have to dig into our
own pockets and have to subsidize that rebuild by ourselves.
Mr. Fulcher. So I have got just 1 minute left. I want to
ask you another question that was not planned here that just
popped into my head.
Mr. Andreas. Sure.
Mr. Fulcher. From your vantage point, is wireless
technology starting to progress to the point where it can take
the place of some of the fiber and copper that is out there
that has to be installed?
Mr. Andreas. I would say no, and the reason being is we are
also using some fixed wireless in Ponderosa, but all the cell
towers that are up there, the cell phones can't connect to
other cell phones or other phones without fiber backhaul that
takes the data and the phone calls from the cell phone towers
into the network.
So in short, no, it could not replace it in total.
Mr. Fulcher. OK. Thank you, Mr. Andreas.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now recognize the
gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Andreas, as you shared in your testimony, when
communities face natural disasters like wildfires, not only are
they negatively impacted by the disaster itself, but they are
also negatively impacted by the mountains of red tape that
unfortunately follows. These communities aren't only hurt in
the days or weeks when the disaster occurs, but they are also
hurt by the bureaucracy they are forced to deal with in the
aftermath.
Could you explain, please explain--or, correction--expand
upon the long-term impacts of the rebuilding process?
And how do these delays and rebuilding impact these
communities?
Mr. Andreas. I will just use an example from the Creek
Fire. We have areas within the wildfire area that haven't even
begun to rebuild yet. We have to go through permitting to get
communications to these areas.
Mr. Stauber. Five years later?
Mr. Andreas. Five years later we are still trying to
rebuild. People have not rebuilt their homes, and they don't
want to rebuild their homes because there is no communication
to those homes. There is power that hasn't been laid down to
these homes up in the, you know, higher parts of the Sierra
Nevada.
Mr. Stauber. You were saying something about NEPA, and I
interrupted you. Finish up.
Mr. Andreas. Well, just the fact that, in terms of if we
didn't have to go through NEPA approval or the historical
preservation approvals, that would speed things up, OK, and,
obviously, the sooner that we get things restored, the sooner
that we are generating revenue for ourselves and for our
company, and that we can put back into the network to upgrade
and rebuild the community.
Mr. Stauber. So you are saying that if you didn't have to
go in NEPA to replace the same fiber line into these
neighborhoods, if you didn't have to, today, quite conceivably,
the neighborhoods could be rebuilt and people would want to
come back. It is because they are not connected. Is that
correct?
Mr. Andreas. Conceivably, yes. It may or may not be because
they are not connected. There are many other factors that build
into it. Some people do not have fire insurance in areas of
California.
Mr. Stauber. Yes.
Mr. Andreas. So when their house burns down, they have
nothing to rebuild it with. So it is not as simple as, well,
they don't have land lines or they don't have data
capabilities. It is one aspect of it, though.
Mr. Stauber. OK. Would you say it is common to see
individuals move from their homes or businesses out of the
communities simply because they now lack the infrastructure
needed for the everyday activities that make up their daily
lives and help their businesses become successful? Have you
seen that?
Mr. Andreas. They have to move somewhere. A lot of times it
is very close to where they had a home before, they had family.
You know, people have lived in the areas that they are for
hundreds of years. They have families. Our ownership goes back
over 100 years. So they don't typically move too far.
Mr. Stauber. I appreciate your experience, and I appreciate
all of the testimony today. I think it is really important
that, after a natural disaster, that we are able to rebuild in
a timely fashion without the redundancy and the red tape that
is stopping our communities to get back on their feet.
And with the remainder of my time I am going to yield to
Chairman Tiffany for 1 minute and 20 seconds.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you.
I would like to follow up on what Mr. Stauber was asking
here, Mr. Andreas. Sum up what you think are a few changes that
should be made in Federal policy that could make your life
easier, could allow you to expand to a greater extent your
business. What are those things that you would like to see
changed?
Mr. Andreas. Are you asking from an overall Federal policy
standpoint?
Mr. Tiffany. Yes.
Mr. Andreas. In telecommunications? Well, one of the first
issues that we deal with is the Universal Service Fund, as I am
sure everybody here is aware of. If Universal Service Fund goes
away, it puts rural telephone companies like ours with 7,200
subscribers in a very difficult situation. Federal obligations,
requirements, reporting requirements, things like that put a
lot of stress on a small company like ours.
Mr. Tiffany. Is that the reporting requirement that has to
do with the Securities and Exchange Commission?
Mr. Andreas. No, really FCC reporting requirements,
reporting requirements associated with reconnect or USDA loans.
Mr. Tiffany. OK.
Mr. Andreas. Things like that, where we have to provide
subscriber counts, performance measures, things like that. We
only have 86 employees in our company. We can't dedicate a
whole bunch of people to it. Bigger companies can spread that
requirement across a couple different people. If they have
700,000 subscribers, that is an easier way for them to spread
that cost.
Mr. Tiffany. And you would include NEPA in this list, I am
assuming?
Mr. Andreas. Absolutely, yes.
Mr. Tiffany. And I am assuming you would include
controlling wildfire in rural areas in America.
Mr. Andreas. Yes, I would absolutely include those.
Mr. Tiffany. I yield back.
Mr. Stauber. Mr. Chair, I yield back to you. Thank you.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now recognize Mr.
Kennedy from Utah for 5 minutes.
Dr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chair, yet again for the
opportunity to speak.
And Dr. Yocom, I would like to address a few questions to
you. Similar legislation to mine, H.R. 1045, passed the Senate
last Congress. And if we can get this bill signed into law with
the support of the Utah delegation, my colleagues around the
dais as well as on the floor, what would it mean for Utah State
University in the State's capacity to advance cutting-edge
research when it comes to wildfire management?
Dr. Yocom. Thank you for the question.
I think it would increase our capacity to focus on wildfire
research by a huge amount. There are very few people overall
working in Utah on wildfire research, and so having an
institute dedicated specifically to that, as well as to
practical management solutions, I think would be really
impactful for Utah.
As I mentioned, there is a little bit of a gap in Utah in
terms of understanding exactly which management actions work in
which forests and why. And so I think it is past time for Utah
to focus resources on these questions.
Dr. Kennedy. You did mention Utah does require scientific
research focused on that specific geography. Could you expand
on the details associated with that that would allow this SWERI
institute to do a better job not only for Utah, but throughout
the West and the country generally?
Dr. Yocom. Sure. Yes, a lot of what we know comes from dry,
ponderosa pine-based forests. We have a lot of information
about how to reduce wildfire risk in those types of forests.
Utah has a unique mix. We don't have very much ponderosa pine.
We have pinyon juniper woodlands, for example, that a lot of
people live near, as well as mixed conifer forests with a
little bit of ponderosa but other tree types.
And there is a lot of questions still just on the
ecological side about what, you know, what role fire plays in
those forests, and exactly how we could use management
activities to reduce fire risk in the most efficient and
effective way.
Dr. Kennedy. Thank you very much. In Utah State University,
their current collaboration with the SWERIs that are throughout
the West, what does that collaborative work look like at this
point?
Dr. Yocom. The existing SWERIs have been really
collaborative, and so have we. We have been working closely
with them in determining the best way to join them as a new
SWERI. They each focus mostly on their own States, but they
also work together on larger regional projects. And I think
adding a SWERI in Utah would not only help Utah, but also
contribute to that region-wide understanding of fire risk and
how to reduce it.
Dr. Kennedy. Very good. Thank you very much.
And Judge Blackmon, I thank you, and all the witnesses for
being here. Judge Blackmon, I was interested in the building
that was poorly roofed, subsequent damage that came to that
building. I would like you to render an opinion.
By the way, your representative that is sponsoring this
bill is an outstanding representative here. I have, as a
freshman, great admiration for Congressman Hill and the great
work that he does.
But so tell me. If the locals had done the contract with
the roofer versus Washington, D.C. doing the contract with the
roofer, do you have an opinion of whether or not that roof
might have been done correctly? And especially if there was an
investment, if you owned that building and you were the ones
that were contracting to make sure the roof got on the correct
way so the building wasn't damaged, might that building have
actually been roofed properly and potentially saved not only
the taxpayers but your local community a lot of money
associated with this? Can you give me an opinion about that?
Judge Blackmon. Yes, sir. Basically, what happened is the
Forestry Service contracted having a new roof put on by a
contractor that I am unaware of who the contractor was. And
then I have friends that work for the Forest Service that told
me that, not long after the new roof was installed, it started
leaking.
By this time, the process of the Forestry Service getting
rid of the building in some capacity had already started. So
instead of having the contractor come back that installed the
roof originally make repairs, they just said, well, there is no
need because we are going to get rid of the building.
Dr. Kennedy. Right.
Judge Blackmon. So I have been trying to push this process
along as quickly as possible, because every time it rains there
is more damage that happens to the building.
Dr. Kennedy. Well, I appreciate what you are doing and what
your Representative Hill is doing, as well.
The reality is local control versus distant control. We can
see that with who cares about this building. Well, it is a
taxpayer-funded, federally taxpayer-funded building right now.
And now what are we talking, $10,000, tens of thousands,
hundreds of thousands of dollars to repair the damage
associated with shoddy work?
Judge Blackmon. I am guessing somewhere around $75,000 by
the time we put a new roof on it and make the repairs. And the
unknown is, until we start the repairs, we don't know how
extensive the damage is.
Dr. Kennedy. Yes. Right, of course. I am very excited to
see local control hold sway, and especially for the 4-H to have
a place to----
Judge Blackmon. Yes.
Dr. Kennedy [continuing]. To actually have their
outstanding services. So thank you for promoting this. I am
certainly promoting it, as well.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I am going to take my 5
minutes for questioning. I want to follow up on what
Representative Kennedy was just talking about, Judge Blackmon.
I am sorry I was not here during your testimony.
So I take it this building is no longer used by the Forest
Service. Is that right?
Judge Blackmon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tiffany. How long has that been the case, Judge
Blackmon?
Judge Blackmon. They downsized to just two or three
employees a few years ago. And then last summer the last
employee moved out, and they moved over into Garland County, to
another county where they worked out of that center. So the
building has been sitting empty almost a year.
Mr. Tiffany. Has that building been put up for sale by the
Federal Government?
Judge Blackmon. No, sir, they have not. They had an
appraisal done of $200,000 on the building, and they offered it
to Perry County for that sale price. But when we looked at the
repairs that are going to be necessary to the building, the
county at that point realized that we could not afford to
purchase the building and then make the necessary repairs with
the limited funding that we have to work with.
Mr. Tiffany. So that building was in significant disrepair,
is that correct?
Judge Blackmon. Yes, sir. And like I said, it is currently
leaking right now. The roof has not been repaired. We had a
major flood about 6 weeks ago, and more of the roof was blown
off and damaged at that point. So right now, every time it
rains the damage is increasing to the building.
Mr. Tiffany. So down in Perryville, when it rains it pours.
Judge Blackmon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tiffany. I think this is just a great example of how
this effort to purchase more land and encumber more land by the
Federal Government is really wrongheaded. We should first be
maintaining the facilities that we have.
Judge Blackmon. Yes.
Mr. Tiffany. I don't know if you care to comment on that,
Judge Blackmon, but it just seems to me that rather than buying
more land, buying more facilities, we need to maintain what we
have with the hundreds of thousands of acres, well, the
millions of acres that the Federal Government owns and
operates.
Judge Blackmon. Yes. They have the same challenge that I
have in the county. They have limited resources also. And so,
you know, they basically consolidated into another building,
and so this building is sitting there empty.
So I am sure that, in their opinion, they can't justify
spending money on this building when they have the other
buildings to maintain. And then they have the hundreds, if not
thousands of miles there in the national forest to maintain
also.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes. So I would just share this comment, and
you don't have to reply to it, any of you on the panel. But we
hear consistently about how the only way that we can go is to
purchase more land, to put more facilities up on Federal land,
that we shouldn't reconsider, hey, decades have passed, maybe
things have changed, maybe we could do things differently.
I think this is a good example of how we should be doing
things differently. And this notion that we can't transfer some
land perhaps to States, to locals, and whatever I think is so
wrongheaded because times do change, and there are better ways
in which we can steward the natural resources of the United
States of America than simply having Federal ownership and
Federal control.
The other thing that I would say in closing here, I did not
get a chance to ask questions of Deputy Chief Crockett, but
everyone was led to believe here today that the Bureau of
State, Private, and Local Forestry is going to be shut down,
and land is not going to be managed anymore, and people are not
going to be worked with if there are changes. I think this is a
very good parallel.
Because the current Administration wants to make some
changes in how we structure an agency doesn't mean that the
work isn't going to be done. And if we are going to do an
effective job here at the Natural Resources Committee and the
Federal Government in managing our natural resources, in
particular in the West, and if we are going to end wildfire or
at least have it in much greater control, there is a few things
that need to happen.
One, we need to hire more foresters within the Forest
Service. I remember talking to my friends in northern Wisconsin
years ago who said, we have enough ologists. They referred to
them as ologists. We need more foresters that are going to mark
trees and manage our forest land.
Second of all, we need to expedite NEPA, as we saw in
regard to the telecom issue, including things like broader and
bigger categorical exclusions. We need to do those things if we
are going to manage properly.
And the final thing is we need to bring industry back, and
we see it with the whole tariffs discussion and all the rest.
We have to bring industry back to America, and we need to build
mills. I think about the gentleman from California when I was
out to Yosemite a few years ago, and they talked about, what, a
couple hundred mills have shut down over the last three or four
decades in the wood-consuming mills out in the Sierras. There
is no wonder that we have a wildfire problem when you do not
have the infrastructure, in particular the mills that can take
that wood and turn it into two-by-fours and lots of other good
stuff that we can rebuild America with.
It is time. It is time that we make changes to how we do
our natural resource management here in America in order to
build things, employ people in building those things, and
making sure that the permitting processes are not so onerous
that we can no longer build things. Because if we turn those
things around by having better permitting processes, by
building the infrastructure here in America, we will restore
American greatness and make things in America once again, and I
can't wait for that day to come. And I sure hope the Natural
Resources Committee is one of the lynchpins in making that
happen here at the Federal level.
With that I want to thank all of you for attending today.
And as so often is the case, you folks come from the Western
States and you have a long ways to travel. We appreciate it
more than you know, that you would take the time out of your
day and week to come here and provide your testimony.
The members of the Subcommittee may have some additional
questions for you, and we will ask that you respond to those in
writing. Under Committee rule 3, members of the Subcommittee
must submit questions to the Subcommittee clerk by 5 p.m. on
Friday, June 13, 2025. The hearing record will be held open for
10 business days for your responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee on Federal Lands stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. French Hill, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Arkansas
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I
appreciate the chance to testify in support of my legislation, H.R.
3187, to require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey a parcel of
property owned by the Forest Service to Perry County, Arkansas, and for
other purposes.
This bill seeks to transfer ownership of a vacant federal building
owned by the U.S. Forest Service, and O.81 acres of land located at
1069 Fourche Avenue in Perryville, Arkansas, to Perry County. The
property is no longer in use by the Forest Service and there are no
plans for its future utilization.
Perry County is a small, rural community with a population of
around 10,000. Approximately 16% of residents live below the poverty
line. About 77% of the county is forested, with 72% of that land
privately owned. The U.S. Forest Service is the largest public
landowner in the county, managing 119,171 acres as part of the Ouachita
National Forest.
For several years, Perry County has sought to acquire this
property. However, due to limited resources and a high poverty rate,
the small county has been unable to purchase it outright. My
legislation would enable the federal government to convey the property
at no cost to the county.
While the building will require repairs and updates, Perry County
has the funds to make the necessary improvements. Once restored, the
facility will support vital local programs. Specifically, it will house
the permanent operations of the University of Arkansas Extension
Program, the Perry County Conservation District, and serve as a meeting
space for the 4-H Youth Development Program. These organizations are
currently struggling with limited space, which hampers their ability to
serve the community effectively.
The University of Arkansas Extension Office provides critical,
research-based information to local families, youth, and farmers. It
hosts educational workshops focused on agriculture, health, and
nutrition. This is particularly important, as 40% of youth and 64% of
adults in Perry County are classified as overweight or obese. A larger
space will enable the Extension Program to better promote healthy
eating habits and teach residents how to grow and prepare nutritious
meals, empowering them to make long-term improvements in their health
and well-being.
There is strong local support for this conveyance. Those who have
expressed their support include:
1. Larry Blackmon, Perry County Judge
2. Kevin Lawson, County Extension Agent--Agriculture, Faulkner
County
3. Tammy Farnam, Administrative Assistant III, Perry County
Extension Office
4. Jacob Farnam, Board President, Perryville School District
5. Kallem Hill, President, Perry County Farm Bureau Board of
Directors
6. Nicole Strecker, 4-H Leader, Perryville High School
7. Donnie Crain, President/CEO, Perry County Chamber of Commerce
8. Amy Branch, Chair of the Board, Perry County Conservation Board
9. David ``Butch'' Hoyt, Vice President, Perry County Cattlemen's
Association
10. Chairperson, Perry County Conservation District
11. Rose Gunther, Former 4-H Member, Perry County
12. Ettamarie Belden, 4-H Leader and Volunteer, Perry County
13. John Roland, Mayor, Perryville
In conclusion, H.R. 3187 will provide Perry County with a much-
needed facility to expand youth development, agricultural education,
and community health initiatives. The conveyance of this unused federal
property will create lasting benefits for the people of Perry County.
Chairman Tiffany, that concludes my testimony. I would be happy to
answer any questions you, or other members of the subcommittee may
have.
[all]