00:00With that, I yield back.
00:02Gentleman's time has expired.
00:04I'm going to take my time for a question.
00:06I want to start with you, Mr. Desatel.
00:07Thank you for coming back again.
00:09We had testimony that you mentioned.
00:11In your testimony, you mentioned in 2023 a project that a preservationist NGO sued
00:17that stopped years of collaboration between the tribe and the Forest Service.
00:23From your perspective, what effect does this litigation have on the Forest Service?
00:28And how it interferes with the ability to be able to collaborate and work together?
00:35So it was the sample project, the TFPA proposal that we submitted, I think, back in 2014.
00:41So it took almost a decade to get to a decision, which was ultimately litigated by the Kettle Range Conservancy
00:47and the Forest Service lost.
00:49Unfortunately, we were not called to be amicus brief or otherwise incorporated into the litigation,
00:57which is unfortunate.
00:58But what we've seen from the Cawville National Forest since is there seems to be a reluctance to do additional work.
01:04That part of the state had gone almost two decades without a forest management project being litigated,
01:10and now they've slowed considerably.
01:11So the scope of that project was subsequently reduced significantly to fall under a categorical exclusion,
01:17but we still have significant concerns that the forest and fire risks associated with that project
01:22that has, like, 20 miles of adjacent boundary with the reservation won't have the level of treatment
01:29that we think it needs to reduce that risk.
01:31So it didn't eliminate the treatment, but it severely crimped it?
01:34Would that be accurate?
01:35And we'll see if the categorical exclusion gets to the finish line, but that's how they've re-approached it.
01:41After they lost the litigation, they re-scoped the project to be significantly smaller, significantly less timber harvest,
01:47significantly less prescribed fire, so that it would fall under a categorical exclusion.
01:51And, again, we'll see if that gets to implementation or not.
01:54It's yet to be determined.
01:56I took Mr. Vredenberg from your testimony that perhaps these are my words,
02:02but you view a categorical exclusion at this point as a band-aid for what should be more comprehensive management.
02:08Am I saying that accurately?
02:10I guess, yes.
02:14Specifically in regards to a categorical exclusion.
02:18I guess, Chairman, you are correct.
02:22It is somewhat of a band-aid.
02:24The NEPA process has become really so cumbersome that we're relying more on categorical exclusions
02:36for lower intensity, more routine maintenance projects because, you know, environmental assessments
02:45or environmental impact statements have gotten so incredibly expensive.
02:49And so, yeah, yes, in a sense, they are a band-aid.
02:54Would you say that, because this comes up regularly here in this committee in regards to NEPA,
02:59that perhaps there needs to be some changes made to NEPA?
03:04Yeah, the focus has drifted from analyzing the real environmental impacts
03:12and doing a good job of communicating those impacts to the public.
03:16That's the intent of NEPA.
03:18They've become more like legal documents that have to, you know, every document that's written
03:26has to stand the rigors of court, of litigation.
03:30And so it really has lost its way, I think, in that regard.
03:35Ms. Clark, would you agree with that assessment?
03:38I would like to highlight the difficulties that NEPA places, especially with the use of beneficial fire.
03:46And so, as we know, beneficial fire, use of prescribed fire in particular, is a really important management technique.
03:52And many prescribed fire projects have been caught up in NEPA analysis that have delayed and increased costs
04:00and suffered litigation risk.
04:02But we haven't done any study of fire exclusion.
04:05And so we engage in fire suppression.
04:07We engage in the exclusion of cultural burning and of active fire use on the ground.
04:13That itself has huge environmental consequences.
04:16Much of the reasons why we see an increase in the high severity catastrophic wildfire
04:23is because we have, for so long, let these low controlled burns not happen on the ground.
04:30And so I think NEPA is creating a disincentive to really good forest management activities
04:35and letting some of the other consequences of fire suppression and fire exclusion go unexamined.
04:42Is the reduction of mills, as has been documented, is that a problem?
04:48Absolutely.
04:49When we're looking at what to do with, as Mr. Desetel said, what to do with the stuff that comes out of the forest.
04:55And so in California, we have certainly seen the closure of a number of mills,
05:01and that has led to a lack of capacity to handle biomass and other treatments coming out of mechanical thinning.
05:07I think in some of the materials, the Washoe tribes' recent mill reopening, for that reason,
05:13has been a huge success and a huge piece of excitement for the folks and tribes that work in that area to have that additional capacity.
05:22Yeah, I would just want to turn back to this chart I had up originally.
05:26I think this tells the story of forest management, in particular in the western states,
05:32but even in my state of Wisconsin, where we've seen mills close, and because of the lack of long-term supply,
05:39I mean, it's very clear what's happening with those lines.
05:42As we've went from less active management of our forests, we've seen more fire, as simple as that.
05:51Now, there's going to be some debate about exactly what that looks like in terms of how we go about the management,
05:57but regardless, we need management.
05:59Isn't that correct, Ms. Clark?
06:00Yes, absolutely.
06:03The stewardship project was put together specifically because we know we need to be doing more active work on the ground.
06:10Go ahead, Mr. Desatel.
06:11If I could, Chairman Tiffany, I think your graph is a great illustration of the biggest problem I see with NEPA,
06:17that for the entirety of my career, we've evaluated the no-impact alternative, the no-action alternative, as having no impacts,
06:25and that's absolutely not the case.
06:26I mean, your graph is a great demonstration of that, that I think in most situations,
06:30the no-action alternative probably has the highest environmental impacts, but we're not treating it that way.
06:35Mr. Lowes, last session of Congress, and under the previous administration,
06:46there was an action taken by the administration with the Alaska tribes where they did not consult
06:56with some of the tribes in regards to, I think it was in particular, it was in regards to natural resources utilization.
07:02I think it was primarily in regards to oil exploration, where the previous administration did not consult
07:10with a few of the tribes in Alaska.
07:12Is that appropriate?
07:14It's not appropriate.
07:15We feel like consultation is vital and not just any form of consultation, but meaningful consultation
07:20where the boxes just aren't being checked by meeting with us.
07:26So, I would just close.
07:28I think what you're talking about in terms of, as I see the big picture,
07:33this really dovetails into a great opportunity for the United States of America.
07:38When you see the whole discussion of, let's get regulatory right, I mean, we talked about NEPA, right?
07:46And we see the tariffs issue that's out there, that we want to produce things in America,
07:52once again, that we bring mills and factories back to America.
07:58It just seems to me like this is a golden opportunity to do some of that once again in America,
08:04where we help produce those affordable two-by-fours that go into a house that make it an affordable house
08:15that young people can live in once again.
08:18And to me, it all ties together in terms of manufacturing in America to make affordable housing
08:24and so many of the good things that can happen for America.
08:28I just think that this is a piece of it.
08:32While it's a small piece, it's an important piece of how we get there to once again have made an America
08:38and to have America prosper once again, including bringing down inflation and all those good things like that.
08:47So, anyhow, thank you so much for taking the time to come here today.
08:54We really appreciate it.
08:55And members of the subcommittee may have some additional questions for you,
09:00and we will ask that you respond to those in writing.
09:04Under Committee Rule 3, members of the subcommittee must submit those questions to the subcommittee clerk by file.
Comments