[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 930, H.R. 1319, H.R. 1380,
H.R. 1527, H.R. 1576, H.R. 1614,
H.R. 1642, AND H.R. 1667
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, March 28, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-12
__________
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
51-753 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Tom McClintock, CA CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
TOM TIFFANY, WI, Chairman
JOHN R. CURTIS, UT, Vice Chair
JOE NEGUSE, CO, Ranking Member
Doug Lamborn, CO Katie Porter, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Russ Fulcher, ID Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Pete Stauber, MN CNMI
John R. Curtis, UT Mike Levin, CA
Cliff Bentz, OR Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Jen Kiggans, VA Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Jim Moylan, GU Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, March 28, 2023.......................... 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................................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Panel I:
Fulcher, Hon. Russ, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho............................................. 14
Moore, Hon. Blake, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Statement of Witnesses:
Panel II:
French, Chris, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S.
Forest Service, Washington, DC............................. 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Questions submitted for the record....................... 27
Mason, Corey, Executive Director, Dallas Safari Club, Dallas,
Texas...................................................... 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Mills, Mike, Arkansas Department of Parks, Heritage, and
Tourism, Little Rock, Arkansas............................. 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Winter, Chris, Executive Director, Access Fund, Boulder,
Colorado................................................... 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 36
Link, Geraldine, Director of Public Policy, National Ski
Areas Association, Lakewood, Colorado...................... 44
Prepared statement of.................................... 45
Panel III:
Reynolds, Mike, Deputy Director, Congressional and External
Relations, National Park Service, Washington, DC........... 60
Prepared statement of.................................... 62
Questions submitted for the record....................... 66
Bannon, Aaron, Executive Director, America Outdoors
Association, Knoxville, Tennessee.......................... 67
Prepared statement of.................................... 69
D'Agostini, John, Retired Sheriff, Coroner, Public
Administrator, El Dorado County, California................ 71
Prepared statement of.................................... 73
Ferguson, Fred, Vice President of Public Affairs, Vista
Outdoor, and Chairman, Vista Outdoor Foundation, Anoka,
Minnesota.................................................. 75
Prepared statement of.................................... 76
Keller, Todd, Director of Government Affairs, International
Mountain Bicycling Association, Boulder, Colorado.......... 78
Prepared statement of.................................... 79
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Kuster, Hon. Anne M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Hampshire, Statement for the Record on H.R.
930........................................................ 86
Bureau of Land Management, Statement for the Record on H.R.
1614....................................................... 86
Submissions for the Record by Representative Tiffany
Full Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman, Statement for
the Record on H.R. 1667................................ 17
Outdoor Recreation Roundtable Association, Letter of
Support................................................ 60
American Whitewater, Letter of Support................... 88
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Letter of Support
for H.R. 1614.......................................... 92
On behalf of Rep. Westerman--American Alpine Club, Letter
of Support for H.R. 1380............................... 94
On behalf of Rep. Westerman--USA Climbing, Letter of
Support for H.R. 1380.................................. 95
Submissions for the Record by Representative Westerman
The Pew Charitable Trusts, Statement for the Record on
H.R. 1380.............................................. 96
American Mountain Guides Association, Letter of Support
for H.R. 1527 and H.R. 1380............................ 96
Submissions for the Record by Representative Neguse
Outdoor Alliance, Letter of Support for H.R. 1380, H.R.
1527, H.R. 1319, H.R. 930, H.R. 1576 and H.R. 1614..... 6
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, Letter of Support for H.R.
1527, H.R. 1576 and H.R. 1614.......................... 9
Winter Wildlands Alliance, Letter of Support for H.R. 930 10
Submissions for the Record by Representative Fulcher
Idaho Public Television, Statement for the Record on H.R.
1576 with attachments.................................. 100
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 930, TO AMEND THE OMNIBUS PARKS AND
PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1996 TO PROVIDE FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A SKI AREA FEE RETENTION ACCOUNT, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES, ``SKI HILL RESOURCES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
(SHRED) ACT OF 2023''; H.R. 1319, TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR AND THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO DEVELOP LONG-
DISTANCE BIKE TRAILS ON FEDERAL LAND, ``BIKING ON LONG-DISTANCE
TRAILS (BOLT) ACT''; H.R. 1380, TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ISSUE GUIDANCE
ON CLIMBING MANAGEMENT IN DESIGNATED WILDERNESS AREAS, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES, ``PROTECTING AMERICA'S ROCK CLIMBING (PARC)
ACT''; H.R. 1527, TO IMPROVE ACCESS FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION
THROUGH THE USE OF SPECIAL RECREATION PERMITS ON FEDERAL
RECREATIONAL LANDS AND WATERS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
``SIMPLIFYING OUTDOOR ACCESS FOR RECREATION (SOAR) ACT''; H.R.
1576, TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS FROM PERMITTING AND FEE
REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTENT CREATION, REGARDLESS OF DISTRIBUTION
PLATFORM, INCLUDING STILL PHOTOGRAPHY, DIGITAL OR ANALOG VIDEO,
AND DIGITAL OR ANALOG AUDIO RECORDING ACTIVITIES, CONDUCTED ON
LAND UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
``FEDERAL INTERIOR LAND MEDIA (FILM) ACT''; H.R. 1614, TO
FACILITATE THE CREATION OF DESIGNATED SHOOTING RANGES ON
NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND AND PUBLIC LAND ADMINISTERED BY THE
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT FOR THE PUBLIC TO USE FOR
RECREATIONAL TARGET SHOOTING, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``RANGE
ACCESS ACT''; H.R. 1642, TO AMEND THE FEDERAL LANDS RECREATION
ENHANCEMENT ACT TO PROVIDE FOR AN ANNUAL NATIONAL RECREATIONAL
PASS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND FIREFIGHTERS, ``LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND FIREFIGHTER RECREATION PASS ACT''; AND
H.R. 1667, TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO IDENTIFY
AND DEVELOP CAMPSITES AND RELATED FACILITIES FOR PUBLIC USE IN
THE OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
``OUACHITA NATIONAL FOREST OVERNIGHT CAMPING ACT''
----------
Tuesday, March 28, 2023
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
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, McClintock, Fulcher,
Stauber, Curtis, Bentz, Moylan, Westerman; Neguse, Porter,
Leger Fernandez, and Grijalva.
Also present: Representative Moore.
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 hear testimony on
eight recreation bills: H.R. 930, the SHRED Act of 2023; H.R.
1319, the BOLT Act; H.R. 1380, the PARC Act; H.R. 1527, the
SOAR Act; H.R. 1576, the FILM Act; H.R. 1614, the Range Access
Act; H.R. 1642, the Law Enforcement Officer and Firefighter
Recreation Pass Act; and H.R. 1667, the Ouachita National
Forest Overnight Camping Act.
I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be
allowed to participate in today's hearing from the dais; the
gentleman from Utah, Mr. Moore.
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, we are sitting indoors, but our focus
will be outdoors. Specifically, the outdoor recreational
opportunities our incredible country has to offer.
Every year, hundreds of millions of visitors are choosing
to be outdoors and recreate at our national parks and public
lands. There are abundant opportunities, such as: hunting,
fishing, shooting, rafting, horseback riding, hiking, and
snowmobiling, among several other activities, to be enjoyed.
Outdoor recreation allows Americans to explore the beauty of
our country, unite with family and friends, and discover new
passions, strengths, and purpose.
While Americans have a deep love for national parks and
Federal lands--think of Yosemite, the giant Sequoias, the Grand
Canyon, and the Apostle Islands in my district--there are
changes we can pursue to ensure all Americans have quality
access to exploring and recreating outdoors.
House Republicans are committed to improving access to our
public lands, including reforming Federal land management
policies that disproportionately limit access to recreation.
This is key to unlocking the full potential of the outdoor
recreation economy, which already accounts for $862 billion in
economic output and more than 4.5 million jobs.
Most of the businesses operating in and around national
parks and Federal lands are small businesses employing local
people who have a passion for the outdoors. They are often in
rural, gateway communities, whose livelihoods depend, in large
part, on outdoor recreation. I know this firsthand. My wife and
I owned and operated Wilderness Cruises near Wisconsin's
beautiful Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest for 20 years. Our
business relied on access and use of public lands.
Federal lands provide for countless outdoor recreation
opportunities and making memories to last a lifetime. While we
boast of the multiple uses of Federal lands most people can
enjoy, unfortunately, they are not accessible to all.
Increasing costs, along with complex and inefficient permitting
processes, often limit access and enjoyment, and prevent parks
and Federal lands from meeting the needs of all Americans. This
magnifies other challenges, including overcrowding,
skyrocketing deferred maintenance backlogs, and closed or
restricted recreation destinations.
Today, we will look at eight bipartisan bills that will
address a wide range of access issues, specifically the quality
and diversity of access. These bipartisan bills tackle
challenges to some of the most popular outdoor recreation
opportunities, such as skiing, biking, rock climbing, and
camping. Each bill addresses a unique and pressing issue, such
as lack of access, cumbersome and confusing permitting
processes, and costly paperwork. Improving these barriers are
key to fully enjoying our Federal lands.
I thank my colleagues for their work on the bills before us
today. This is a good start, and I am confident we can do
better and make real change. We will continue our work on these
legislative initiatives and others, such as improving access to
trails and roads that have been closed to hunters. I am hopeful
we can address these issues in a common-sense, constructive
manner to make real change for our constituents.
The legislation before us today will be the first of many
recreation bills this Subcommittee will consider. This will set
the stage for a broad, comprehensive, bipartisan recreation
package. I look forward to working with Ranking Member Neguse
and other Members across the dais to develop this package.
I would like to thank my Senate colleagues for also putting
outdoor recreation in the spotlight. Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Chairman Manchin and Ranking Member Barrasso recently
renewed their commitment to outdoor recreation with the recent
introduction of their recreation package.
Each of our witnesses today brings expertise in their area
of outdoor recreation, and will help this Subcommittee
understand how we can address some of the issues facing
Americans as they seek to explore and discover this great
country.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here, and I look
forward to today's discussion.
With that, I will now recognize Ranking Member 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. I am still getting
used to the Minority over here.
I very much appreciate the Chairman's remarks and him
impaneling today's legislative hearing, and looking forward to
the testimony that we will receive from the witnesses today.
As the Chairman articulated, we will be considering eight
recreation bills, continuing important work on measures like
the BOLT Act and the SOAR Act that we started last Congress.
I always enjoy the opportunity to hear public lands and
outdoor recreation bills in this Subcommittee. Outdoor
recreation is important not only to me personally, to my
family, but to my constituents back home in Colorado, and
something that I have been proud to work on during my time in
Congress.
The first bill I would like to highlight today is my
legislation, H.R. 1319, the Biking on Long-Distance Trails Act,
or BOLT Act, which I introduced with my good friends and
Natural Resource Committee Members, Representatives Curtis of
Utah, and Lee of Nevada. This legislation would, in short,
require DOI and USDA to establish long-distance bike trails
across the country, not only making it safer and more
accessible to Americans, but also providing opportunities to
boost the outdoor recreation economy.
This bill is a bipartisan and bicameral piece of
legislation, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
later today to speak about its importance. I was certainly glad
that this bill passed on unanimous consent out of this
Committee a year ago in the last Congress, and also through the
full House of Representatives on a strong bipartisan vote, and
I certainly look forward to advancing this legislation out of
the Committee again this year.
Next on the agenda is H.R. 1527 with, again, my good
friend, Representative John Curtis out of Utah. The Simplifying
Outdoor Access for Recreation, or SOAR Act, which, in short,
would modernize special recreation permitting to increase
access on public lands. It would, in turn, of course, grow the
outdoor recreation economy and provide our communities with the
physical and mental health benefits of enjoying time outside in
our public lands. It is a major priority for small businesses
across, certainly, Colorado and the Rocky Mountain West, the
outfitter and guide community, and I am really hoping that we
can get it all the way across the finish line before the end of
this Congress.
We have also been working with Mr. Curtis, I know he has
introduced another bill on today's agenda that we have
partnered with him on as an original co-sponsor, and that is
Protecting America's Rock Climbing Act, or the PARC Act, which
aims to protect recreational climbing and establish consistency
in climbing management on Federal lands by requiring the USDA
and DOI to establish guidance on climbing in wilderness areas.
I am looking forward to hearing from the witnesses on this
particular piece of legislation, and ensuring that we also get
this bill across the finish line.
Next up, H.R. 930, a bill that is incredibly important to
the people of Colorado and to the mountain communities that I
represent, and that is the Ski Hill Resources for Economic
Development, or SHRED Act of 2023, which I am proud to co-
sponsor with Representative Kuster of New Hampshire. I am proud
to co-lead this bill, and I am looking forward to discussing
the legislation today.
The ski community consists of 122 ski areas across our
nation's public lands, including many world-renowned ski areas
that I am lucky enough to represent in my district. Many of
you, I am sure, have visited places like Vail, Breckenridge,
Winter Park, Keystone, and Copper Mountain, all of which I have
the privilege and honor of representing. It is critical that
these areas and our national forests are properly funded for
the outdoor recreational economy and community, and to protect
our lands and our resources.
The SHRED Act will provide needed funding for resources in
national forests to support winter recreation by creating a ski
fee area retention account, which essentially would allow the
retainment of fees for reinvestment in our local forests. It is
a really important bill, and I am looking forward to hearing
more about it today.
Of course, we have H.R. 1614, the Range Access Act,
introduced by a former Member of this august body who is now on
an exclusive committee, I believe, but Mr. Moore of Utah. H.R.
1614 would establish free recreational shooting ranges in all
qualifying national forests and Bureau of Land Management
public land districts. Recreational shooting is already
authorized on public lands, but these shooting ranges can
provide a safe environment to engage in the sport.
H.R. 1642, a bill that I strongly support, introduced by my
colleague Representative McClintock, the Law Enforcement
Officer and Firefighter Recreation Pass Act, would amend the
Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to provide national
parks and Federal recreational lands passes to law enforcement
officers and firefighters. Currently, the NPS has a process in
place to issue free passes to a select group of individuals,
including U.S. military members and veterans. I commend the
work of our law enforcement officers, our firefighters, and our
first responders to keep our public lands, our communities, and
our families safe, and I am very supportive of the legislation
that has been introduced by Mr. McClintock.
Over the past couple of days, the Committee has received
several letters from groups, including the Outdoor Alliance,
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, the Winter Wildlands Alliance,
the American Mountain Guides Association, and the Outdoor
Recreation Roundtable Association, and I would ask unanimous
consent to enter these letters into the hearing record.
Mr. Tiffany. So ordered.
[The information follows:]
OUTDOOR ALLIANCE
March 27, 2023
Hon. Tom Tiffany, Chairman
Hon. Joe Neguse, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: March 28th Federal Lands Subcommittee legislative hearing on
outdoor recreation
Dear Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
subcommittee:
Thank you for holding the March 28th legislative hearing to
consider multiple bills of significance to the human-powered outdoor
recreation community. A number of proposals before the subcommittee
would greatly improve sustainable recreation access on federal public
lands while providing strong public health and economic benefits to
local communities. We also have concerns with several of these
proposals, which we have noted below. We encourage you to work with the
recreation community and other stakeholders to pass a strong bipartisan
package of recreation policy in the 118th Congress.
Outdoor Alliance is a coalition of ten member-based organizations
representing the human powered outdoor recreation community. The
coalition includes Access Fund, American Canoe Association, American
Whitewater, International Mountain Bicycling Association, Winter
Wildlands Alliance, The Mountaineers, the American Alpine Club, the
Mazamas, Colorado Mountain Club, and Surfrider Foundation and
represents the interests of the millions of Americans who climb,
paddle, mountain bike, backcountry ski and snowshoe, and enjoy coastal
recreation on our nation's public lands, waters, and snowscapes.
Outdoor recreation is the most common way that Americans come to
know their public lands and waters. It contributes immeasurably to
people's lives and supports vibrant communities through better health,
well-being, and the ability of recreation access and amenities to
attract businesses and workers across a range of industries,
particularly in rural communities.
Participation in outdoor recreation is on the rise nationally. The
total number of participants in outdoor activities has increased nearly
7% since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, with the newest cohort
of recreationists being more diverse in terms of age and ethnicity.\1\
This trend is also reflected in visitation data from federal land
management agencies including the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land
Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which all show a
steady increase in recreational visits over the past decade.\2\ The
increase in recreational use on federal public lands also supports the
growing outdoor recreation economy, which accounted for $862 billion in
gross economic output, 1.9 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, and
4.5 million jobs in 2021.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Outdoor Industry Association, 2022 Outdoor Trends Report
(2022). Available at https://outdoorindustry.org/wp-content/uploads/
2015/03/2022-Outdoor-Participation-Trends-Report-1.pdf.
\2\ Gwendolyn Aldrich and Evan Hjerpe, The Conservation Funding
Crisis, Conservation Economics Institute (2022), available at https://
www.conservationecon.org/public-lands.
\3\ Bureau of Economic Analysis, BEA 22-55, Outdoor Recreation
Satellite Account, U.S. and States, 2021 (2022), available at https://
www.bea.gov/news/2022/outdoor-recreation-satellite-account-us-
andstates-2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a need for Congress to modernize outdoor recreation policy
on federal public lands and beyond in order to account for increased
visitation, modern technology, and growing concerns about the
resilience of public lands. During the 117th Congress, the Senate made
considerable progress toward passing a bipartisan package of recreation
policy via America's Outdoor Recreation Act.\4\ Outdoor Alliance is
encouraged to see the Federal Lands Subcommittee build on this
progress, and we are committed to working with the Subcommittee to
refine and build support for a recreation package in 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Senate version of America's Outdoor Recreation Act has been
reintroduced in the 118th Congress as America's Outdoor Recreation Act
of 2023.
Our comments on individual bills are provided below.
Protecting America's Rock Climbing (PARC) Act (H.R. 1380)
Outdoor Alliance strongly supports the PARC Act, which would
safeguard Wilderness climbing opportunities by directing the
establishment of national-level guidance for the placement and
maintenance of fixed climbing anchors in Wilderness areas. Wilderness
areas are integral to America's climbing history, and climbers were
among the original supporters of the Wilderness Act. Many of America's
most iconic climbing areas, including Yosemite's El Capitan and the
Diamond in Rocky Mountain National Park, lie within federal Wilderness
areas, and climbers benefit greatly from the Wilderness character found
in these areas.
Fixed anchors are essential tools in a climber's safety system.
These include bolts, slings, pitons, and other tools long used by
climbers to safely and sustainably ascend and descend technical
terrain. Fixed anchors are found in Wilderness areas throughout the
country, and many pre-date the Wilderness Act. Despite climbing's
longtime status as an established use in Wilderness areas, there has
never been a consistent federal policy for managing fixed anchors
within Wilderness across agencies.
The PARC Act would restate Congress's intent that climbing is an
allowable use within Wilderness areas and would require both the
Department of Interior and the USDA Forest Service to establish
consistent, national-level guidance on managing fixed anchors in
Wilderness. The bill also clarifies that federal agencies must provide
an opportunity for public comment on proposed changes to fixed anchor
policy while providing agencies with authority to take emergency
actions related to fixed anchor management if it is necessary to
protect natural resources or public safety. These changes will provide
certainty that climbers can continue to enjoy sustainable access to
some of the world's most treasured climbing areas without amending the
Wilderness Act or changing long established Wilderness management. We
thank the bill sponsors for their attention to this critically
important issue.
Simplifying Outdoor Access for Recreation (SOAR) Act (H.R. 1527)
Outdoor Alliance strongly supports the SOAR Act, which would
facilitate meaningful outdoor experiences by improving the recreational
permitting systems for outfitters and guides. For many people, guided
outdoor experiences provide a first exposure to more adventurous forms
of outdoor recreation and to the natural world. These opportunities are
essential for allowing new participants to experience outdoor
recreation activities in a safe environment that allows for skill
building and helps participants become more conscientious visitors to
sensitive landscapes.
The ability for facilitated access providers to offer these
experiences is dependent on a challenging and dated system for special
use permitting for public lands activities. The SOAR Act will improve
the recreational permitting systems so more people can experience
public lands through volunteer-based clubs or with an outfitter, guide,
nonprofit outdoor leadership organization, or university outdoor
program. We are particularly supportive of provisions in the SOAR Act
that would:
Direct the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to
identify opportunities to improve the special recreation
permitting process;
Allow outfitters' unused surplus service days to be made
available to other potential permittees;
Make information about the availability of the special
recreation permits available online;
Allow outfitters and guides to engage in activities that
are substantially similar to the activities specified in
their permit;
Allow agencies to provide permits for multi-jurisdictional
trips under a single joint permit;
Encourage agencies to allow purchasers to buy a federal
and state recreation pass in a single transaction;
Make the America the Beautiful Pass and other federal
recreation passes available for purchase online;
Extend the duration of the recreation season to cover a
broader period of the year where recreational activities
are occurring;
Require the Forest Service and BLM to adopt recreation
performance metrics that better reflect the quality and
sustainability of the recreation experience;
Encourage federal agencies to enhance recreation
opportunities through private-sector volunteer programs.
Together, these changes would simplify and modernize recreation
permitting to make guided outdoor experiences more easily accessible to
the American public.
We strongly support this bill, which reflects years of thoughtful
input from facilitated access providers, conservation organizations,
and others.
Biking on Long-Distance Trails (BOLT) Act (H.R. 1319)
Outdoor Alliance strongly supports the BOLT Act, which would
promote mountain biking as a sustainable recreation activity on federal
lands by identifying opportunities for long-distance bike trails. This
bipartisan legislation would diversify outdoor infrastructure by
expanding long-distance bike trails across America's federal public
lands. By providing opportunities for trail users, Congress can create
pathways to positive physical and mental health, and this legislation
supports these goals.
The Biking on Long-Distances Trails (BOLT) Act will direct federal
land managers within the Department of Interior, and USDA Forest
Service to 1) identify no fewer than 10 existing long-distance bike
trails not shorter than 80 miles; 2) identify not fewer than 10
opportunities to develop or complete long-distance trails not less than
80 miles; 3) create maps, signage, and promotional materials for long-
distance trails; and 4) issue a progress report no later than 2 years
after enactment. We appreciate the bill's attention to these special
opportunities and resources.
Ski Hill Resources for Economic Development (SHRED) Act of 2023 (H.R.
930)
Outdoor Alliance supports the intent behind the SHRED Act, to keep
ski area fees within the National Forest system, but we have
reservations over how the funds in the Ski Area Fee Retention Account
would be disbursed. In general, ski areas effectively convert public
land into highly developed private businesses; while these businesses
provide a valued service to many outdoor recreationists, it is
appropriate that these businesses pay for their essentially exclusive
use of public lands, and those fees must serve a public purpose broader
than facilitating additional development. Further, because we
understand the bill to come with a budget score, we are concerned that
any offset would likely come from elsewhere within the Forest Service's
budget, effectively replacing resources that can go where most needed
with money narrowly targeted for ski area permitting purposes.
As currently drafted, the SHRED Act would direct at least 60% of
ski area permit fees back into the Forest Service ski area program for
the direct benefit of the ski area(s) on the unit from which these fees
were collected. This distribution does not match the agency's actual
needs nor the act's intent to invest ski area fees into Forest Service
recreation management for the benefit of all Americans and our natural
resources.
This committee has previously received testimony from Outdoor
Alliance, and many others, concerning the dire state of the Forest
Service's recreation program. Outdoor recreation participation is at an
all-time high, but agency staffing and resources are insufficient to
meet public expectations, maintain infrastructure, or protect the
resources the Forest Service is tasked with stewarding. The Ski Area
Fee Retention Account could provide an important source of funds to
supplement Congressional appropriations and help the Forest Service
meet its capacity challenges, but as written, the SHRED Act fails to
live up to this intent. We are not opposed to directing some portion of
the Ski Area Fee Retention Account to the Forest Service ski area
program as described in 5(A), but this amount should not exceed 40% of
the fees collected. This would still provide ample funds and capacity
for the agency's ski area program, which is considerably smaller and
more narrowly focused than the Recreation, Heritage, and Volunteer
Resources program in which it is housed. Likewise, the Act should
direct at least 60% of the Ski Area Fee Retention Account to the
activities described in paragraph (5)(B). Furthermore, we suggest
expanding the activities described in paragraph (5)(B) to include
(vi) avalanche information and education activities carried out
by the Secretary, state government, or nonprofit partners;
and
(ix) over-snow travel management planning under 36 CFR part
212, subpart C.
As currently written (5)(B)(vi) appears to not include state-run
avalanche information centers, such as the Colorado Avalanche
Information Center and the Utah Avalanche Center. Our suggested
addition to (5)(B)(vi) will ensure these critical partners are eligible
for Ski Area Fee Retention Account funds. Furthermore, by including
over-snow travel management planning in the activities eligible for Ski
Area Fee Retention Account funds, the SHRED Act can help to support a
critical winter recreation management need.
Federal Interior Land Media (FILM) Act (H.R. 1576)
Outdoor Alliance appreciates the FILM Act's intent to update the
permitting process for commercial filming to account for modern
technology and modern formats for distributing media that blur the
distinction between commercial and noncommercial activities. We
appreciate the improvements made to H.R. 1576 from the version of the
FILM Act introduced in the 117th Congress, particularly lowering the
size threshold for film crews that require a permit. We support adding
an additional requirement that commercial film crews acquire an online,
no-cost permit that would provide an opportunity to educate production
crews about best practices for filming on federal lands and establish a
point of responsibility between film crews and federal agencies. This
would provide an important opportunity to help minimize impacts on
recreational, cultural, and ecological resources.
Range Access Act (H.R. 1614)
Outdoor Alliance supports judiciously sited designated shooting
ranges on public land, as unmanaged and unregulated target shooting on
public lands is a safety and resource protection hazard in many
locations across the United States. Designated areas for this activity
would improve public safety and reduce impacts to public lands. We are
concerned, however, by several aspects of the Range Access Act.
First, we are concerned through Section 2(c)(2), could prevent
closing areas of Federal land to shooting unless a target shooting
range is made available. This creates a potential public safety hazard,
especially given the Forest Service and BLM's limited ability to
quickly designate target shooting ranges due to capacity constraints.
Such closures have been necessary to protect National Forest lands and
ensure public safety, particularly in high-use recreation areas in
close proximity to urban areas.\5\ We request that the text be amended
to allow for closures for public safety or resource protection in
addition to ``emergency situations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ An example is Closure Order 06-05-05-11-01 on the Mt. Baker-
Snoqualmie National Forest that closed areas within the Middle Fork
Snoqualmie and South Fork Snoqualmie River corridors to recreational
shooting that are located within close proximity to the greater Seattle
metro area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, we believe that the presence of a minimum of one range per
National Forest or BLM unit is arbitrary, and the legislation should,
rather, encourage agencies to evaluate the need for additional
developed shooting areas.
Finally, we would strongly support the addition of provisions to
require planning for shooting area cleanup, including lead removal.
Given these likely costs, we strongly support the elimination of the
exemptions for these areas from collecting fees under the Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act, both as a matter of ensuring resources for
management and as a matter of equitability with other public land
users.
Thank you for holding this important hearing. We look forward to
working with you to advance outdoor recreation policy in the 118th
Congress.
Best regards,
Louis Geltman,
Policy Director
______
BACKCOUNTRY HUNTERS & ANGLERS
Missoula, MT
March 27, 2023
Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva:
On behalf of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (BHA), the voice for our
wild public lands, waters, and wildlife, we write in support of the
following legislation being considered by the House Natural Resources
Committee. BHA encourages the committee to advance the Simplifying
Outdoor Access for Recreation Act (H.R. 1527), the Federal Interior
Land Media Act (H.R. 1576), and the Range Access Act (H.R. 1614). We
commend the bill sponsors and committee leadership for their commitment
to increasing and improving opportunities that would benefit sportsmen
and women on our public lands and waters.
The Simplifying Outdoor Access for Recreation (SOAR) Act would
expedite and simplify the permitting process for accessing public lands
and waters by eliminating duplicative processes, reducing costs, and
shortening processing times. It would also create greater flexibility
and improve permitting for outfitters and guides through authorizing
joint permits for activities covering lands managed by multiple
agencies. Hunters, anglers, and other outdoor recreators would benefit
from modernization and simplification of processes like these that will
ultimately make more opportunities available.
The Federal Interior Land Media (FILM) Act would remove fees and
permit requirements for filming and recording on lands expanding the
current use of this policy on National Park System lands to all lands
managed by the Department of the Interior and Department of
Agriculture. This would eliminate red tape for small film crews on
public lands while still allowing for the agencies to manage activities
with their discretion such as to ensure wildlife are not disturbed.
The Range Access Act would require that the United States Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) maintain a publicly
accessible recreational shooting range that does not charge a user fee
in each National Forest and BLM district. Importantly it will ensure
safe and accessible opportunities for sportsmen and women to practice
marksmanship ahead of hunting season. Doing so will also provide an
established area for the public to practice safe shooting, and
alleviate pressure and pollution created by non-designated shooting
ranges on our public lands.
BHA supported the recent introduction of the America's Outdoor
Recreation Act (S. 873) by Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee Chairman Joe Manchin and Ranking Member John Barrasso. We
urge you to not only advance H.R. 1527, H.R. 1576, and H.R. 1614, but
to consider additional legislation that would create a comprehensive
package of outdoor recreation priorities supported by important
constituencies like hunters and anglers. These bills have important
benefits for all those who enjoy recreating on our public lands and
waters, and we look forward to working closely with you to advance our
shared priorities into law.
Sincerely,
John Gale,
Vice President--
Policy and Government Relations
______
WINTER WILDLANDS ALLIANCE
Bozeman, Montana
March 24, 2023
Hon. Tom Tiffany, Chairman
Hon. Joe Neguse, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: March 28th Federal Lands Subcommittee legislative hearing on
outdoor recreation
Dear Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for holding a hearing on recreation legislation. Of the
bills under consideration today, we are particularly interested in H.R.
930, the Ski Hill Resources for Economic Development (SHRED) Act of
2023. We strongly support the intent behind the SHRED Act, to keep ski
area fees within the National Forest system, but have significant
reservations over how the funds in the Ski Area Fee Retention Account
would be disbursed. In this testimony, we offer suggestions for your
consideration to ensure SHRED truly meets the intent to invest ski area
fees into Forest Service recreation management in a fair and equitable
manner that benefits all Americans and our natural resources.
Winter Wildlands Alliance is a national non-profit working to
inspire and empower people to protect America's wild snowscapes. Winter
recreation management on public lands is of keen interest to us and our
constituency. Our alliance includes 34 grassroots groups in 16 states
and has a collective membership exceeding 130,000. Our members are
backcountry skiers and snowboarders, cross-country skiers, ice
climbers, fat tire bikers, and winter hikers. Collectively, these
activities are the fastest growing segments of the winter sports
industry, with up to 30 million participants each year (compared to
around 10 million--and declining--who participate annually in resort
skiing and snowboarding).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Snowsports Industry America (SIA) 2021-2022 Participation
Study: 96% growth in backcountry skiing participation (4.3M unique
users); 60% growth in Nordic and snowshoeing (22.3M human-powered
users); 2.4M winter fat bikers + 67%. Report available for download at
https://tinyurl.com/bdh5vrcm. National Ski Areas Association Industry
Statistics available at www.nsaa.org/NSAA/Media/Industry_Stats.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part of this decline may be related to the increasingly high cost
of resort skiing--midweek adult lift tickets for ski areas operating on
National Forest lands average $97 per day, and exceed $200 per day for
some Western resorts.\2\ As ski areas ticket prices become increasingly
out of reach to the average American, participation in non-resort
winter recreation on National Forest lands, and the importance of
supporting and investing in these public recreation resources, will
continue to grow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See www.onthesnow.com/united-states/lift-tickets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One hundred and twenty-two commercial ski resorts currently operate
under special use permits on Forest Service lands. Although by acre ski
areas make up a relatively tiny percentage of National Forest lands,
these resorts have an outsized influence on the forests where they are
located and the communities bordering those forests. As skiers and
snowboarders, our members often have close ties to their local ski area
in addition to being backcountry enthusiasts. However, our members have
also expressed growing concern over proposed ski area development and
expansion projects onto formerly undeveloped public lands and the
accompanying potential effects to public access, local communities,
wildlife, watersheds, and wildland fire. Because all winter
recreationists generally seek similar combinations of snow quality and
quantity, terrain, vegetation, and access, ski area expansions often
occur at the expense of highly valued dispersed recreation
opportunities, as well as watershed and ecosystem integrity. While we
see a need to invest in Forest Service special use permitting, we fear
the SHRED Act may incentivize the Forest Service to prioritize ski area
permitting and development over management of other recreation
resources, to the detriment of the recreating public and the national
forests.
Ski areas pay a use fee based on the income they derive from use of
public lands. As currently drafted, the SHRED Act would direct at least
60% of these fees back into the Forest Service ski area program, for
the direct benefit of the ski area(s) on the unit from which these fees
were collected. Only 20% of the fees would be available for use for
general Forest Service recreation needs on the unit from which the fees
were collected (as described in paragraph (5)(B)). An additional 20% of
the funds would be available for the Forest Service to use for
recreation needs on non-ski area forests, or to augment the funds
already being directed to the Forest Service ski area program under
paragraph 5(A) of the Act.
This distribution--at least 60% for the ski area program and no
more than 40% for other recreation needs--does not match the Agency's
actual capacity needs. While all Forest Service departments and
programs face capacity challenges, even on ski area forests the ski
area program and its needs are not larger than the rest of the
recreation program. Likewise, while ski area forests do see significant
visitation, non-ski area forests are feeling these same pressures. By
restricting 80% of ski area fees collected for use only on the unit
from which the fees originated, Congress will be reducing the Forest
Service's ability to expand their capacity where it is most needed. We
believe Congress should allow greater Forest Service discretion to
determine where funds from the Ski Area Fee Retention Account can be
used, within the sideboards outlined in paragraph (4)(B).
Outdoor recreation participation is at an all-time high while
Forest Service staffing and resources are near an all-time low. Forest
Service capacity is woefully insufficient to meet public expectations,
maintain infrastructure, or manage visitor use. The Ski Area Fee
Retention Account could provide an important source of funds to
supplement Congressional appropriations and help the Forest Service
meet its capacity challenges, but as written, the SHRED Act fails to
live up to this potential. To do so, at least 60% of the Ski Area Fee
Retention Account should be directed to the activities described in
paragraph (5)(B) of the Act.
We support directing a portion of the Ski Area Fee Retention
Account to the Forest Service ski area program as described in
paragraph (5)(A) but believe this amount should not exceed 40% of the
fees collected. This would still provide ample funds and capacity for
the agency's ski area program, which is considerably smaller and more
narrowly focused than the Recreation, Heritage, and Volunteer Resources
program in which it is housed. The most straightforward way to make
these adjustments would be to adjust the percentage in paragraph
(4)(A)(ii)(I) to 25% and the percentage in paragraph (4)(A)(ii)(II) to
75%. Congress could also ensure greater equity between ski area forests
and non-ski area forests by reducing the percentage of funds restricted
to use on a covered unit as described in (4)(A)(i). These changes would
require adjusting the percentages in paragraphs (4)(B) and (4)(C)(i)
and (ii) as well. We welcome further conversations with Subcommittee
members and staff concerning these adjustments.
In addition, we suggest expanding the activities described in
paragraph (5)(B) to include:
(vi) avalanche information and education activities carried out
by the Secretary, state government, or nonprofit partners;
and
(ix) over-snow travel management planning under 36 CFR part
212, subpart C.
As currently written, (5)(B)(vi) fails to include state-run
avalanche information centers, such as the Colorado Avalanche
Information Center and the Utah Avalanche Center. Our suggested
addition to (5)(B)(vi) will ensure these critical partners are eligible
for Ski Area Fee Retention Account funds. Furthermore, by including
over-snow travel management planning in the activities eligible for Ski
Area Fee Retention Account funds, the SHRED Act can help to support a
critical winter recreation management need. Ski area forests support
many forms of winter recreation, including snowmobiling. Over-snow
vehicle travel management planning provides certainty for snowmobilers
and other dispersed winter recreation visitors, by designating routes
and areas for over-snow vehicle use in a manner that minimizes use
conflict and natural resource impacts. Once completed, forest visitors
have a clear understanding of where to go to enjoy their preferred
winter activity on the national forest and certainty that this access
will be preserved.
Finally, under Congressional rules, this legislation will require a
funding offset. If this offset comes from the Forest Service's budget
it will negatively impact general Forest Service budgeting, directing
scarce funds to the ski area program at the expense of other programs
within the agency. If the SHRED Act offset redirects general purpose
Forest Service funds to the ski area program this will only exacerbate
the agency's capacity challenges.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on this
legislation.
Sincerely,
Hilary Eisen,
Policy Director
______
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that being said,
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses this morning and,
again, want to thank them for taking the time to testify before
the Subcommittee, and thank the Chairman for putting these
bills on the legislative hearing today.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Neguse follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Joe Neguse, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Colorado
Thank you, Chair Tiffany. Today's legislative agenda will consider
eight recreation bills, continuing important work on measures like the
BOLT Act and SOAR Act that we started last Congress.
I always enjoy the opportunity to hear public lands and outdoor
recreation bills in this Subcommittee, as outdoor recreation is
important to not only me but my constituents back home in Colorado, and
something I have been proud to work on during my time in Congress.
The first bill I would like to highlight is my legislation, H.R.
1319--the Biking on Long-Distance Trails, or BOLT Act--which I
introduced with my good friends and Natural Resources Committee
members, Representatives Curtis of Utah and Lee of Nevada.
My legislation would require DOI and USDA to establish long-
distance bike trails across the country to promote biking on federal
lands across the United States. Not only making it safer and accessible
to more Americans, but also providing opportunities to boost the
outdoor recreation economy.
The BOLT Act is bipartisan, bicameral legislation and I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses later today to speak about its
importance. I was glad to pass this bill on Unanimous Consent out of
this Committee last Congress and also through the full House of
Representatives in a bipartisan vote. I look forward to working to
advance this legislation out of Committee again this year.
Next on the agenda is H.R. 1527--the Simplifying Outdoor Access for
Recreation, or SOAR Act.
H.R. 1527 would modernize special recreation permitting to increase
access on public lands. In turn, this would grow the outdoor recreation
economy and provide our communities with the physical and mental health
benefits of enjoying time outside in our public lands.
This is a major priority for the outfitter and guide community, and
I really hope we can get it all the way across the finish line before
the end of this Congress.
I have been working with Mr. Curtis to pass this bill over the past
few Congresses, and I am glad to see we are taking up this bill again
so early in the 118th Congress.
Speaking of Mr. Curtis, he introduced another bill on today's
agenda that I am partnered with him on as an original co-sponsor.
H.R. 1380, Protecting America's Rock Climbing Act, or the PARC Act,
aims to protect recreational climbing and establish consistency in
climbing management on federal lands by requiring USDA and DOI to
establish guidance on climbing in wilderness areas.
I understand that the Department of Interior has concerns about the
specifics of this legislation, so I look forward to hearing how land
management agencies are working to ensure access, and working with them
and the sponsor on any concerns with the bill.
Next, we have H.R. 930--the Ski Hill Resources for Economic
Development, or SHRED Act of 2023, introduced by Representative Kuster
of New Hampshire.
I am proud to also co-lead this bill and look forward to discussing
the legislation today.
The ski community consists of 122 ski areas across our nation's
public lands, including many world-renowned ski areas that I am lucky
enough to represent in my district. It is critical that these areas and
our national forests are properly funded for the outdoor recreational
economy and community and to protect our lands and resources.
The SHRED Act will provide needed funding for resources in National
Forests to support winter recreation by creating a Ski Fee Area
Retention Account to retain fees for reinvestment in local forests.
Next is H.R. 1614--the Range Access Act, introduced by former
Natural Resources Member, Mr. Moore of Utah.
H.R. 1614 would establish free recreational shooting ranges in all
qualifying National Forests and Bureau of Land Management public land
districts. Recreational shooting is already authorized on public lands
and these shooting ranges can provide a safe environment to engage in
the sport.
H.R. 1642, the Law Enforcement Officer and Firefighter Recreation
Pass Act, introduced by Representative McClintock of California would
amend the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to provide National
Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Passes to law enforcement officers
and firefighters.
Currently, the National Park Service has a process in place to
issue free National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Passes to a
select group of individuals, including U.S. Military Members and
Veterans. I commend the work of law enforcement officers and
firefighters to keep our public lands safe.
I continue to support the goal of increasing access to our public
lands and am happy to see this Committee prioritizing outdoor
recreation, as this is critical to my communities and constituents in
Colorado. There is clearly broad interest in outdoor recreation on
public land. Over the past few days, the Committee has received several
letters from groups including the Outdoor Alliance, Back County Hunters
and Anglers and the Winter Wildlands Alliance, the American Mountain
Guides Association, and the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable Association.
I ask for unanimous consent to enter these letters into the hearing
record.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses this morning and thank
them for taking the time to testify before the Subcommittee.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you to the Ranking Member for those
comments.
Now, I would like to recognize Representative Fulcher for 5
minutes on H.R. 1576, the FILM Act.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RUSS FULCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today in support of the Federal Interior
Lands Media Act, or the FILM Act.
The FILM Act updates the permitting and fee requirements
for capturing photography and video on Federal lands under the
jurisdiction of the USDA and the Department of the Interior by
providing exemptions for such fees for commercial or non-
commercial creation, regardless of where the content is
distributed.
Now, there is a bit of background here. In the year 2000,
Congress passed a bill providing guidelines to the land
management agencies for commercial film activities. However,
the question of what is commercial, the definition of that,
versus what was not, has prompted some concerns that relate to
free speech and, overall, the access to Federal lands. Here are
some specific but ongoing examples of the struggles we are
talking about.
Idaho Public Television, or IPTV, is an entity funded in
part by Idaho taxpayers, and it has increasingly been
confronted with questions related to whether or not they need
to acquire a permit to film on Federal lands for their TV show
called ``Outdoor Idaho.'' ``Outdoor Idaho'' is a television
production showcasing Idaho's outdoor areas, most of which are
held in the Federal estate. In submitted testimony, Bill Manny,
the Executive Producer at Idaho Public Television, identified
several examples for the need to update the statute relating to
filming on Federal lands.
In four separate instances over the last 2 years, Mr. Manny
received conflicting information from various land management
agencies as to whether or not a permit was required prior to
filming. In one instance, Mr. Manny's team sought to film in
Idaho's Bitterroot Mountains. And given his prior working
relationship with Federal land management agencies, Manny
appropriately informed the relevant agencies of his activities,
only to be told that he must first provide specific dates,
times, and locations for all areas to be filmed. Manny was also
encouraged to use old footage dating as far back as 1995,
instead of taking new footage. Mr. Manny was told by one of the
land management agencies that he should have had trail
volunteers shoot video footage for IPTV from their personal
phone cameras, rather than let him compile video, as he
typically would, with his multi-person professional crew.
Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, unfortunately, there
are circumstances around the country where Federal agencies
take a heavy-handed management position against reasonable
public land use. This legislation clarifies that for purposes
of filming on Federal lands, in that case, our Federal lands
are just that, our Federal lands, and they need to be
accessible to all content creators, in this case, those
showcasing its beauty.
Lastly, a lot of work has gone into finding an appropriate
legislative fix. So, to the Federal Land Subcommittee staff for
working so hard on this FILM Act, please accept my thanks.
With that, I appreciate your consideration, and I yield
back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Congressman Fulcher. I now
recognize the Representative from Utah, Mr. Moore, on the Range
Access Act.
You have 5 minutes, sir.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BLAKE MOORE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany. It is wonderful to
be back in this Committee room, the Committee that gets things
done and bills passed.
And to the Ranking Member, my colleague from Colorado, Mr.
Neguse, I trust you have seen the exceptional ski season that
Utah has had this year, and I want to again extend an offer to,
at any point you would like to visit the greatest snow on
Earth, you are always welcome.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Moore. I am truly grateful, with all jokes aside, to be
back here with the opportunity to speak on the Range Access
Act, which I introduced with my colleague and friend,
Congressman Panetta from California. This is an important bill
for my district and for our nation.
Conservation is an issue that all Americans care about. In
1937, Congress passed the Pittman-Robertson Act to help
generate funding for conservation programs. At the time,
wildlife and habitats across the nation were on the decline.
Americans and industry stepped up and passed the Pittman-
Robertson Act to bring money to state wildlife agencies. The
program has been, for lack of a better word, a wild success.
Over the years, states have received more than $15 billion
in conservation funding. And according to the National Shooting
Sportsmen Foundation, nearly 85 percent of the funding
generated each year is derived from target ammunition. One of
the first projects ever funded by the Pittman-Robertson Act was
in my home state of Utah in 1938, to improve waterfowl habitat.
Eighty-five years later, this funding has been used to teach
hunter education classes, purchase property, develop shooting
ranges, study deer populations, control invasive species, and
much, much more.
This funding is crucial, since states face many challenges
when managing public lands. Because of increased usage,
drought, and other factors, states today have to work harder to
manage lands effectively. Working to ensure that our states
have access to even more conservation funding is one way that
we can all help alleviate this burden. I am grateful that the
House Natural Resources Committee is holding this hearing today
to consider my Range Access Act, which will help us accomplish
this important goal.
The Range Access Act will make it easier for Americans to
recreational shoot by requiring the Bureau of Land Management
and the U.S. Forest Service to operate public, free-of-charge,
shooting ranges in every district. These ranges will be located
on sites that meet specific access and safety criteria
identified by the agencies, in consultation with local and
tribal governments, non-profits, wildlife agencies, shooting
clubs, and more. They will also feature important safety
features like berms, firing lines, and benches.
In addition to stimulating local economies, this bill will
make it easier for Americans to safely recreate, assist more
generally in our efforts to recruit a new generation of
conservationists, and also improve the condition of our public
lands.
Many of us have all planned family excursions to visit
state or Federal lands, only to see shot-up toasters and old
TVs, kind of done in impromptu targeting practice, and I
believe I speak for all of us when I say that none of us would
miss seeing this type of trash littered across our beautiful
public lands. By establishing appropriate shooting ranges, we
can clean up pollution, and the litter, and improve the
conditions of the land that we all love.
The value of this cannot be overstated. The elusive win-win
is not something we find frequently in Congress, but I am proud
to lead this effort and can unite Americans from all
backgrounds and political persuasions. This is about fulfilling
the purpose of our lands.
Utah is home to some of our nation's most beautiful
landscapes, and an exceptional snow ski season this year. We
know and love these lands, and want to make them more
accessible, more enjoyable, and more clean for future
generations, and I believe we can accomplish these goals.
Thank you again for holding this important hearing, for
considering this bill, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Blake Moore, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Utah
Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of
the Committee for holding this hearing today.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the Range Access
Act, which I introduced with my colleague, Congressman Panetta. This is
an important bill for my district and for our nation.
Conservation is an issue that all Americans care about.
In 1937, Congress passed the Pittman-Robertson Act to help generate
funding for conservation programs. At the time, wildlife and habitat
across the nation were on the decline. Americans and industry stepped
up and passed the Pittman-Robertson Act to bring money to state
wildlife agencies.
The program has been a--for lack of a better word--wild success.
Over the years, states have received more than $15 billion in
conservation funding.
According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, nearly 85
percent of the funding generated each year is derived from target
ammunition.
One of the first projects ever funded by the Pittman-Robertson Act
was in my home state in Utah in 1938 to improve waterfowl habitat.
Eight-five years later, this funding has been used to teach hunter
education classes, purchase property, develop shooting ranges, study
deer populations, control invasive species, and much more.
This funding is crucial since states face many challenges when
managing public lands. Because of increased usage, drought, and other
factors, states today have to work harder to manage lands effectively.
Working to ensure that our states have access to even more
conservation funding is one way we can help alleviate this burden.
I am grateful that the House Natural Resources Committee is holding
this hearing today to consider my Range Access Act, which will help us
accomplish this important goal.
The Range Access Act will make it easier for Americans to
recreationally shoot by requiring the Bureau of Land Management and the
U.S. Forest Service to operate public, free-of-charge shooting ranges
in every district.
These ranges will be located on sites that meet specific access and
safety criteria identified by the agencies in consultation with local
and Tribal governments, nonprofits, wildlife agencies, shooting clubs,
and more. They will also feature important safety features like berms,
firing lines, and benches.
In addition to stimulating local economies, this bill will make it
easier for Americans to safely recreate, assist us more generally in
our efforts to recruit a new generation of conservationists, and also
improve the condition of our public lands.
Many of us have planned family excursions to visit state or federal
lands only to see shot-up toasters and TVs. I believe I speak for all
of us when I say none of us would miss seeing trash littered across
public lands.
By establishing appropriate shooting ranges, we can clean up
pollution and improve the conditions of the lands we all love.
The value of this cannot be overstated.
The elusive win-win is not something we find frequently in
Congress, but I am proud to lead this effort that can unite Americans
from all backgrounds and political persuasions. This is about
fulfilling the purpose of our lands.
Utah is home to some of our nation's most beautiful landscapes. We
know and love these lands and want to make them more accessible, more
enjoyable, and more clean for future generations.
And I believe we can accomplish all these goals.
Thank you again for holding this important hearing today, and I
yield back.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative Moore.
I would like to ask unanimous consent that Chairman
Westerman's statement be entered into the record in support of
his bill, H.R. 1667, the Ouachita National Forest Overnight
Camping Act.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Westerman follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman, Committee on
Natural Resources
Public access to our public lands is crucial. All Americans should
be able to get outdoors, recreate, and enjoy the beauty of our country.
We need to take care of our lands to ensure the maximum outdoor
experience. I have long been a proponent of conservation, stewardship,
and recreation.
As Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, I am
committed to serious oversight of our federal land management agencies.
While many Americans enjoy public lands, the lands are not accessible
to all. Committee Republicans will encourage diverse use of public
lands, quality of access, and proper management of funds by our
agencies to address the growing backlog of deferred maintenance.
This hearing sets up a series of hearings in which we will address
the pressing issues hampering the outdoor recreation economy. From
small businesses, to local, rural, and gateway communities, the
importance of recreation is felt all over this country. Sadly, costly
permits and bureaucratic processes are stifling some of the fastest and
most popular outdoor activities like hunting, fishing, biking,
climbing, hiking, and camping.
One of the best places to recreate is the Ouachita National Forest,
in my district. Visitors can fish, swim, camp, hike, bike, trail ride
horses, and enjoy the outdoors, among other activities.
The 1.8 million-acre Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas and
Oklahoma is a recreation destination to hundreds of thousands of people
annually. One of the most popular sites within the Ouachita National
Forest is the Albert Pike Recreation Area, which features hiking,
swimming, and other day uses. It was a popular place for overnight
campers, with families and generations of families returning year after
year.
The area was closed to overnight camping after a major flash flood
tragically killed 20 people on June 11, 2010. In November 2020, the
Forest Service initiated a planning process to determine which
facilities and infrastructure would support the uses of the recreation
area in the future. Under the Forest Service's final decision, no
overnight camping would be permitted.
After the Forest Service's decision to permanently suspend all
overnight camping, I have heard from countless constituents who
expressed their disappointment and frustration at the decision. It
would be a disservice to the community to permanently ban overnight
camping and deprive folks who return to the area year after year to
share the experiences they had as children with their families. I look
forward to working with the Forest Service to allow for safe and
responsible usage for years to come. We can safely refit the area to
ensure the 2010 tragedy never occurs again.
That is why I introduced the Ouachita National Forest Overnight
Camping Act to reopen overnight camping in the Ouachita National Forest
closed as a result of the flood. First, the bill would require the
Forest Service to re-open any campsites outside of the 100-year flood
plain within thirty days of the bill's enactment. Second, it would
identify areas suitable for overnight camping within six months.
Finally, the bill would develop at least 54 campsites outside of the
100-year flood plain within 2 years of the bill's enactment.
I'd like to thank Mike Mills, the Secretary of the Arkansas
Department of Parks, Heritage and Tourism for joining us today. Along
with being a constituent of mine, Secretary Mills ran the Buffalo
Outdoor Center for over forty years. Secretary Mills knows firsthand
the value that well managed public lands can have for small businesses
and gateway communities. I'd also like to thank our new Governor, Sarah
Huckabee Sanders, for her leadership in outdoor recreation and for
establishing the Natural State Initiative. Arkansas is already a world
class destination for activities like mountain biking and rock
climbing, and under her leadership we are poised to grow the Natural
State's outdoor recreation economy even further.
As we continue to promote access to our federal lands, proper
management, and enjoyment for all Americans, I know this Committee will
be a leader in these conversations. I look forward to working in a
bipartisan and bicameral fashion to advance comprehensive legislation
supporting outdoor recreation on federal lands and waters in the 118th
Congress.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Next, I would like to recognize the gentleman
from California, Mr. McClintock, on H.R. 1642.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of
time, the sponsor of the bill, the fellow who brought it to us,
is here today to testify on it. He can do a far better job
explaining it than I can. So, I will eagerly await his
testimony, and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you to the gentleman from California.
We are going to move on to our second panel now. Let me
remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, they must
limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their entire
statement will appear in the record.
To begin your testimony, please press the ``on'' button on
the microphone. We use timing lights. When you begin, the light
will turn green. At the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn
red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement.
I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member
questioning.
I would like to now introduce Mr. Chris French, who is the
Deputy Chief of the National Forest System for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Deputy Chief French--first of all, welcome back.
Mr. French. Thanks.
Mr. Tiffany. And you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS FRENCH, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. French. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member
Neguse, and members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today.
I am Chris French, the Deputy Chief of the National Forest
System for the USDA Forest Service. I have been with the agency
for more than 30 years, and I am responsible for the policy,
oversight, and direction for the natural resource and public
service delivery programs across 193 million acres of national
forests and grasslands. This includes all of our programs for
managing recreation and special use permitting, which are the
focus of the bills you are considering today.
I am a strong advocate for the Forest Service Recreation
Program and am proud that we provide one of the widest arrays
of recreational opportunities on our public lands today,
including 159,000 miles of trails, 370,000 miles of roads, and
nearly 30,000 recreation sites.
Recreation is, by large, the largest economic driver off of
national forests, contributing more than $13.7 billion to
America's GDP and supporting more than 161,000 jobs. However,
we have a budget and resources that are dwarfed by many of our
other programs. This past year, the Forest Service began a
National Strategy and Action plan effort called the Reimagine
Recreation. Many of today's bills share the same spirit
designed to help us move toward that strategy.
Reimagine Recreation challenges ourselves to think
differently about how we deliver recreation into the future.
That vision is grounded by engaging with others, including new
and diverse audiences. To that end, I am excited to see
Congress' focus on our recreation program, because they are the
primary pathway used by more than 160 million American visitors
as they connected with our national forests in just the past
year.
In terms of the specific bills that are being discussed
today, USDA supports the SHRED Act, which would improve our
customer service, along with improving a variety of recreation
opportunities on national forest lands that contribute to local
economies. The SHRED Act recognizes the resources needed to
support the 127 downhill ski areas that are located on National
Forest System lands, and it allows us to provide a level of
service deserving to this important use. Importantly, it also
helps us deliver our entire recreation program.
We support the intent of the Range Access, BOLT, and Law
Enforcement Officer and Firefighter Recreation Pass Acts, and
we would welcome opportunities to work with you on how best to
meet the goals of these bills. In each of these bills, there
are existing pathways to accomplish the bill objectives, and I
think it is important to identify the costs and consequences of
achieving the intent of the bills in light of a program that is
currently challenged by its funding levels.
We generally support the SOAR Act as a means to streamline
our permitting programs and provide greater access to our
National Forest System. We manage over 30,000 special use
authorizations, including more than 8,000 outfitter guide
permits, 3,000 special event permits, and 1,500 communication
sites. The SOAR Act establishes efficiencies and approaches
that make that process more customer-driven. We would like to
share with the Committee some of the agency improvements and
changes we have undertaken since the bill was originally
conceived.
USDA opposes the PARC Act. We recognize that climbing is an
important activity in wilderness. However, our current policy
development in response to existing congressional direction
already meets the bill intent of providing climbing guidance
without further legislation.
And while we have concerns with the FILM Act, we welcome
any opportunity to work with the Subcommittee to improve the
clarity of the proposed processes and consistency of the bill's
approach with other laws and regulation.
On the Ouachita National Forest Overnight Camping Act, USDA
would like to work with the bill's sponsor and the Subcommittee
to make future management of the Albert Pike Recreation Area
safe and enjoyable for the public. Albert Pike has safety
challenges that we are all aware of, so we look forward to
developing a collaborative solution that meets the needs of the
public.
I appreciate the Subcommittee's focus on improving
recreation delivery on our public lands. I look forward to
working with you on these bills, and I welcome your questions
today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. French follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chris French, Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, U.S. Department of Agriculture--Forest Service
on H.R. 930, H.R. 1380, H.R. 1667, H.R. 1642, H.R. 1319, H.R. 1614,
H.R. 1576, and H.R. 1527
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, regarding
various Federal land management bills.
USDA appreciates the recognition by this Subcommittee of the
importance of recreation on Federal lands to our national economy, as
well as the sustained interest in finding solutions to recreation
management challenges. We understand these challenges, and we know that
we can further enhance recreation opportunities on Federal lands.
Seeking to continue the momentum built through the Great America
Outdoors Act and the Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA),
the Forest Service has initiated a national strategy and action plan
called Reimagine Recreation. The Forest Service is also a foundational
member of Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation (FICOR),
which is partnering across all land and water management agencies to
better coordinate delivery of opportunities and access for outdoor
recreation. This effort will clarify and change the way we deliver
recreation opportunities. We are building our vision by engaging with
new and diverse audiences. Our goal is to develop a national recreation
action plan by the end of this year that sets clear priorities for the
agency and identifies the conditions and pathways to get us there. We
look forward to keeping you apprised of this effort and believe it can
address many of the issues targeted by the proposed legislation we are
discussing today.
Concerning the bills that are the subject of this hearing:
USDA supports H.R. 930 (the SHRED Act) and supports the intent of
the Range Access, SOAR and BOLT Acts, as well as the Law Enforcement
Officer and Firefighter Recreation Pass Act.
USDA opposes the PARC Act because we are in the midst of policy
development that is required by existing legislation and believe this
legislation is unnecessary. Given there is pending litigation
associated with issues addressed by the FILM Act that may affect the
proposed legislation, USDA would also like to work with the
Subcommittee on the topic of commercial filming. On H.R. 1667, USDA
would like to work with the Subcommittee to address the concerns
expressed below and make future management of the Albert Pike
Recreation Area safe and enjoyable for the public. USDA defers to the
U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) as to the effects of these bills
on any DOI bureaus and the federal lands under their jurisdiction.
Background
The USDA Forest Service manages 155 national forests and 20
national grasslands, comprising 193 million acres in 41 states and
Puerto Rico. National forest and grassland outdoor recreation offers
the widest possible array of opportunities to experience Federal lands,
which are home to three million acres of lakes, 400,000 miles of
streams, 122 Wild and Scenic Rivers for rafting, kayaking and other
watersports, and 159,000 miles of trails for horseback riding, hiking,
snowmobiling, mountain biking, and more.
The Forest Service is deeply committed to connecting all Americans
to the outdoors, and we value the important role played by outfitters
and guides, resorts, non-profit organizations, and other concessioners
in connecting people to recreation opportunities in the national
forests and grasslands. Outdoor recreation attracts people to visit,
live, and work in gateway and rural communities and supports the
health, well-being, and economic vitality of those communities. In
fiscal year 2021, recreation on National Forest System lands
contributed more than $13.7 billion to America's gross domestic product
and supported more than 161,500 full and part-time jobs, the vast
majority of which are in gateway and rural communities.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 2021 National Visitor Use Monitoring survey. These numbers
reflect total benefits (direct, indirect, and induced).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fiscal year 2021, there were 156 million recreation visits to
national forests and grasslands. When we include the number of people
who pass through these beautiful forests and grasslands to enjoy the
scenery and travel on scenic roads and byways, that number increases to
456 million visits. Recreation pressure has been particularly
significant in national forests close to urban areas.
Moreover, the recreation program on National Forest System lands
sustains more private sector jobs per program dollar than any other
Forest Service program and provides the single largest economic
stimulus for many local communities adjacent to or within National
Forest System boundaries. Outdoor recreation opportunities and
amenities are consistently ranked as one of the primary reasons people
move to rural towns and can be a leading contributor to small town
economies. The Forest Service administers over 30,000 commercial
recreation special use authorizations for activities that generate
nearly $2 billion in revenue for special use authorization holders. In
particular, the Forest Service administers 127 ski area permits and
approximately 8,000 outfitting and guiding permits.
These permits enable private sector professionals and educational
institutions to lead a range of activities on National Forest System
lands, from whitewater rafting, downhill skiing, horseback riding, and
big game hunting to educational trips for youth in the wilderness and
scenic jeep tours. For many recreationists, these activities represent
their exposure to the outdoors, and the outfitters and guides they
employ are often small businesses that generate jobs and income for
local communities. Forest Service permit holders help connect Americans
to their natural world and these connections have proven benefits for
mental health and overall wellbeing.
H.R. 930: Ski Hill Resources for Economic Development (SHRED) Act
The SHRED Act would amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands
Management Act of 1996 to establish an account for ski area permit fees
and to authorize the Forest Service to deposit ski area permit fee
revenues into that account and retain and spend the revenues for
specified purposes.
USDA supports the SHRED Act. The authority to retain and spend ski
area permit fees would improve customer service through improved ski
area permit administration. This bill would increase efficiencies in
administering ski area permits and support staff training, coordinating
wildfire preparedness, and providing avalanche-related safety
education. The SHRED Act also would provide for some of the retained
permit fee revenues to be used for administration of other types of
commercial recreation permits, visitor services, and other purposes.
In 2021, $77 million in ski area permit fees were collected by the
Agency. The current ten-year average for annual ski area permit fees is
$44 million. Based on the formula in the bill, 100% of the ski area
permit fees would be retained by the Forest Service annually. Retained
ski area permit fees would be used to improve administration of
recreation opportunities that contribute to local economic activity
across 127 ski resort communities on National Forest System lands,
primarily in rural areas, in 14 states. These recreation opportunities
spur industry growth and generate revenue for ski areas.
H.R. 1380: Protecting America's Rock Climbing (PARC) Act
H.R. 1380 would require the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior each to issue guidance on climbing management in wilderness
areas under each Secretary's jurisdiction. The guidance would have to
recognize the appropriateness in wilderness areas of ``allowable
activities,'' which are defined in the bill to include recreational
climbing, the placement, use and maintenance of fixed anchors, and the
use of other equipment necessary for recreational climbing. The bill
specifies that allowable activities are appropriate only if undertaken
in accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et. seq.), other
applicable laws and regulations, and any terms and conditions deemed
necessary by each Secretary. Prior to any management action affecting
``allowable activities'' in wilderness, the public would have to be
given notice and opportunity to comment. However, no guidance or public
notice and comment would be required in the case of an ``emergency
action,'' defined as a time-sensitive action with a duration of less
than two years that is necessary to protect natural resources or public
health and safety.
Climbing is a growing sport, with approximately 10 million
Americans participating. We recognize that climbing is an appropriate
activity in wilderness when conducted in accordance with applicable law
and Forest Service directives and consistent with the applicable land
management plan and climbing management plan. While almost one-third of
all climbing opportunities on federally managed land are located on
National Forest System lands, currently the Forest Service has no
national-level direction on those climbing opportunities.
USDA opposes the PARC Act. In 2021, Congress required the Agency,
through the Consolidated Appropriations Act to develop guidance on
climbing opportunities on national forests and grasslands, including
the application of the Wilderness Act and appropriate use of fixed
anchors and fixed equipment in wilderness. In response, the Agency has
been developing the guidance, in consultation with the U.S. Department
of the Interior, and will publish the proposed guidance for public
comment, as required by existing law. The Forest Service anticipates
publishing the proposed policy for public comment later this spring.
Tribal consultation on the proposed policy has already been completed.
Because of the existing statutory requirement to develop the policy and
its ongoing development, USDA does not believe legislation is necessary
to accomplish the intent of this bill. We believe the directive
currently under development will lead to climbing management plans that
balance cultural and ecological objectives consistent with the agency's
multiple-use mandate and the Wilderness Act. USDA has strong concerns
about ambiguity of terms in the bill and constraints on the Forest
Service's ability to address emergencies based on the definition of the
term ``emergency action'' in the bill. Furthermore, creating new
definitions for allowable uses in wilderness areas, as H.R. 1380 would
do, has the practical effect of amending the Wilderness Act, which
could have serious and harmful consequences for the management of
wilderness areas across the nation.
H.R. 1667: Ouachita National Forest Overnight Camping Act
H.R. 1667 would require the Forest Service to identify areas within
the Albert Pike Recreation Area on the Ouachita National Forest in
Arkansas that may be suitable for overnight camping within six months
of enactment. Within two years of enactment, the bill would require the
Agency to select and establish campsites and related facilities for
public use from identified areas. The bill would require the Forest
Service to ensure that at least 54 campsites are available, that each
campsite and related facilities are located outside the 1 percent
annual exceedance probability flood elevation (100-year floodplain),
and that at least 8 campsites have electric and water hookups. H.R.
1667 also would require the Forest Service to open within 30 days of
enactment each existing campsite in the Albert Pike Recreation Area
that is located outside the 100-year floodplain.
The Forest Service is deeply committed to connecting all Americans
to the outdoors and values the important role camping plays in
connecting visitors to nature and recreation opportunities in the
national forests and grasslands. The Forest Service also agrees
developed campsites should be located outside the 100-year floodplain
for visitor safety reasons.
The landscape and weather patterns of the Ouachita National Forest
present a very high risk of flash flooding in and near the Albert Pike
Recreation Area. Existing developed campsites in the Albert Pike
Recreation Area are located in the 100-year floodplain. A tragic flood
in 2010 inundated the entire area, exceeding the 100-year floodplain,
taking the lives of 20 people camping in the area and leading to
multiple lawsuits against the United States.
To address public safety concerns and minimize potential liability
of the United States, developed campsites in the Albert Pike Recreation
Area must be outside the existing 100-year floodplain and above the
documented elevation of previous flooding. However, it is questionable
whether the Albert Pike Recreation Area can accommodate 54 campsites,
or even the existing number of campsites, outside the existing 100-year
floodplain. Although there is a small amount of acreage in the area
that is outside the existing 100-year flood plain which could
accommodate some campsites, the access road to that acreage would be in
the existing 100-year flood plain, creating a risk of potential
entrapment endangering the public and first responders. Twice since
last fall, the bridge accessing parts of the area has been under water
from storms.
Even assuming the Albert Pike Recreation Area has the potential to
accommodate existing and additional campsites outside the existing 100-
year floodplain, making that determination would require a site
assessment and suitability analysis. The time needed to conduct a site
assessment and suitability analysis, obtain the requisite funding, and
reconstruct existing campsites and construct new campsites outside the
existing 100-year floodplain would exceed the time frame specified in
the bill.
The Ouachita National Forest has campgrounds in the vicinity of the
Albert Pike Recreation Area that are not at capacity and that have
desirable amenities. USDA would like to work with the Subcommittee and
bill sponsors to explore how best to ensure that the Albert Pike
Recreation Area provides safe and enjoyable recreation experiences for
the public while minimizing the potential liability of the United
States.
H.R. 1642: Law Enforcement Officer and Firefighter Recreation Pass Act
H.R. 1642, the Law Enforcement Officer and Firefighter Recreation
Pass Act, would amend the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act
(FLREA) to provide for an annual National Recreational Pass free of
charge for law enforcement officers and firefighters who provide
adequate proof of eligibility as determined by the Secretary concerned.
The bill defines a ``firefighter'' as any employee of the Federal
Government, a State, a unit of local government, or an Indian Tribe who
performs work directly related to suppressing fires, including wildland
fires. A ``law enforcement officer'' is defined as any officer, agent,
or employee of the Federal Government, a State, a unit of local
government, or an Indian Tribe authorized by law or by a governmental
agency to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, or
investigation of any violation of criminal law or who is authorized by
law to supervise sentenced criminal offenders.
FLREA authorizes the Federal land management agencies to retain and
spend the recreation fee revenues they collect, primarily at the sites
where they are collected and can directly benefit visitors to those
sites. It is important to consider a balanced approach to Federal
recreation passes and the impact that free Federal recreation passes
have on Federal land management agencies' ability to offer the high-
quality recreation services the public has come to expect. USDA works
closely with other Federal land management agencies to support Federal
lands across the nation, including the State of California, where FLREA
is especially beneficial. USDA appreciates the intent of this bill, and
we would like to work with the bill sponsor and the Subcommittee to see
how we can best meet the goals of the proposed legislation.
Notably, over 20 percent of all Americans (58 to 79 million) are
eligible for a free or low-cost Annual or Lifetime America the
Beautiful--National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass,
including the annual Military Pass, lifetime Access Pass, 4th Grade
Every Kid Outdoors Pass, annual and lifetime Senior Passes, and most
recently, launched just last November, the new lifetime Veterans and
Gold Star Families Pass. According to the U.S. Department of Justice,
as of 2022, nearly 25 percent of law enforcement officers are veterans
and would qualify for the lifetime Veterans and Gold Star Families
Pass.
H.R. 1319: Biking On Long-Distance Trails Act
H.R. 1319, the Biking on Long-Distance Trails (BOLT) Act, would
require the Federal land management agencies to identify at least 10
long-distance bike trails on the Federal lands they manage and to
identify at least 10 areas where long-distance bike trails could be
developed or completed on the Federal lands they manage. Long-distance
bike trails are defined as trails being at least 80 miles in length
that are available to mountain biking, road biking, touring, or cyclo-
cross. The bill would provide for maps and other bike trail
identification materials and would require submission of a report to
Congress within two years of enactment on the identified bike trails.
USDA supports the goal of H.R. 1319 to identify and promote long-
distance biking opportunities on National Forest System lands.
Consistent with its multiple-use mission, the Forest Service considers
mountain biking in the context of all possible uses of National Forest
System trails, including hiking, horseback riding, and off-highway
vehicle use. National Forest System lands provide numerous long-
distance biking opportunities on local as well as regionally and
nationally recognized trails such as the Colorado Trail, several
National Recreation Trails, the Arizona National Scenic Trail, and
portions of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail.
We would welcome the opportunity to discuss existing biking
opportunities on National Forest System lands and to work on technical
improvements to the bill. For example, we would like to clarify
expectations regarding each Secretary's contribution toward identifying
and developing long-distance bike trails, including the development of
maps and signage. We also note that there are costs associated with
this bill. We estimate signage for each long-distance bike trail could
cost up to $10,000, with development of maps and other information
costing an additional $2,000 to 5,000 per trail. If new trail
construction is needed, it would cost an additional $20,000 to $25,000
per mile.
H.R. 1614: Range Access Act
H.R. 1614, the Range Access Act, would require the Forest Service
within 1 year of enactment to identify each national forest that has an
existing target range meeting criteria specified in the bill. The bill
would also require the Forest Service to identify each national forest
that does not have a target range meeting those criteria and determine
whether establishment of such a target range is prevented by existing
law or the applicable land management plan. For each national forest
where establishment of such a target range is not prevented by law or
the applicable land management plan, the Forest Service would have to
identify a suitable location for the target range based upon criteria
specified in the bill and construct the target range within five years,
subject to availability of appropriations, modify an existing target
range to meet the bill's criteria, or enter into an agreement with
another entity to establish or maintain such a target range. The Forest
Service would be prohibited from requiring a user to pay a fee for use
of a target range designated under the bill. Furthermore, prior to
issuance of a non-emergency order prohibiting recreational shooting
under the Dingell Act (16 U.S.C. 7913), the bill would require the
Forest Service to seek to ensure that a target range meeting the
criteria of the bill or an equivalent target range adjacent to National
Forest System lands is available to the public. The bill would also
apply to the U.S. Department of the Interior with respect to Federal
lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management.
USDA supports the intent of H.R. 1614 to support target ranges on
National Forest System lands. However, we have serious concerns with
the bill as written, including the safety of those enjoying the sport
as well as of those nearby, and we would welcome an opportunity to work
with the bill sponsor and the Subcommittee on how best to support
target ranges on National Forest System lands while addressing public
safety concerns.
The Forest Service already has authority to identify appropriate
sites for construction and operation of target ranges on National
Forest System lands and is doing so where there is adequate demand, a
suitable site, and available funding. H.R. 1614 would overlap with
Section 4 of the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act,
which facilitates the establishment of additional or expanded target
ranges on Federal land. Assessing and ensuring site suitability for
target ranges is critical because of the potential tort liability
concerns they present, particularly if they are located close to homes,
schools, or popular trails. Site selection may also be affected by
environmental concerns associated with wildlife habitat and impacts of
spent bullets.
Cost is also an important consideration. There are over 130 target
ranges on National Forest System lands, which collectively need $1.3
million in deferred maintenance. A target range being constructed in
the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National
Grassland will cost $4 million to complete, with estimated annual
operating and maintenance costs of $60,000 to $75,000. H.R. 1614's
prohibition on charging use fees would eliminate an important funding
source for construction, operation, and maintenance costs. FLREA
authorizes the Forest Service to charge recreation fees for the use of
target ranges operated and maintained by the Forest Service, which can
be retained and spent by the Forest Service. The Agency has authority
under other Federal statutes to charge a land use fee to concessioners
that operate and maintain target ranges on National Forest System
lands. Public use fees and concessioner land use fees are vital to
financing the safe and effective operation and maintenance of target
ranges. For these reasons, USDA is very concerned about the prohibition
in the bill on charging fees for use of these facilities.
H.R. 1576: Federal Interior Land Media Act or ``FILM Act''
H.R. 1576, the Federal Interior Land Media Act or ``FILM Act,''
would preclude USDA from requiring a permit or land use fee for filming
or still photography, regardless of the distribution platform, if the
filming or still photography meets certain criteria, including
occurring in a location where the public is allowed, compliance with
visitor use policies, not impeding the experience of other visitors,
not disturbing resource values and wildlife, not requiring the
exclusive use of a site, compliance with Federal, State, and local law,
and not involving a group larger than six individuals. The bill would
allow USDA to require a permit and land use fee for filming that occurs
in an area not generally open to the public, the agency accrues
additional administrative costs associated with the filming, the
filming occurs in a high-volume area, a set or staging equipment is
required, or the filming involves a group of eight or more individuals.
The bill would establish a new ``de minimus'' category under which a
permit would be automatically issued upon submission of an application
for groups of six to eight individuals that meet the other criteria in
the bill. The bill deems that it creates no conflict with the
Wilderness Act of 1964.
In Price v. Garland, a federal district court ruled that aspects of
the statute authorizing permits and fees for filming and still
photography on National Park Service lands violate the First Amendment.
On appeal of the case, the Federal government prevailed on its argument
that the statute is constitutional. However, the case is still pending,
with a petition for a writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court. The
National Park Service's filming and still photography statute is
identical to the filming and still photography statute for the Forest
Service and other Federal land management agencies.
In addition to USDA's concerns that this bill's approach to
authorizing filming and still photography on Federal lands would create
confusion for permit administrators and the public and could cause
resource damage, resolution of the pending litigation will better
inform the proposed legislation. We would therefore appreciate the
opportunity to work with the Subcommittee and bill sponsors on
potential improvements to the existing authority for issuing filming
and still photography permits on Federal lands.
H.R. 1527: Simplifying Outdoor Access to Recreation (SOAR) Act
USDA generally supports the intent of H.R. 1527, the SOAR Act, to
improve access to outdoor recreation through use of special recreation
permits on Federal lands and waters. Since this bill was first
introduced several years ago, the Forest Service has made great
progress in meeting this intent through administrative improvements to
increase the level of customer service provided to the Agency's permit
holders and prospective applicants. For instance, the Agency continues
to expand its capabilities with online permitting, and a current
rulemaking effort will update the cost recovery regulations for special
use permitting. Due to these intervening developments to address issues
raised by the SOAR Act, USDA would like to work with the bill sponsors
and Subcommittee on technical improvements to address any remaining
issues in a manner that will be both administratively efficient and
provide good customer service to the public.
Title 1--Modernizing Recreation Permitting
USDA supports the overall intent of Title I and has been working
since 2016, in conjunction with many trade and industry partners, to
modernize the Forest Service's recreation permitting program. Although
we support the intent of this Title, we would like to work with the
Subcommittee and bill sponsor to ensure that the language accomplishes
its intent.
Section 103: Permitting Process Improvements and Section 104: Permit
Flexibilities
USDA supports the overall intent of these sections. Since 2016, the
Forest Service has taken steps to implement several of the objectives
of these sections, including reducing the number of expired permits by
approximately 50 percent. Specifically, the Agency has conducted a Lean
Six Sigma Analysis of its permitting process and is implementing
recommended actions, many of which align with the intent of this bill.
The Agency has also piloted an online application platform for special
use permits and plans to continue expanding the capabilities of this
digital platform as part of OMB's High Impact Service Provider
initiative.
We would like to work with the bill sponsor and Subcommittee to
ensure the language in these sections accomplishes their intent,
considers existing program delivery, and allows sufficient time to
complete ongoing revision of the Agency's regulations and policies. In
addition, we want to ensure the language allows us to address visitor
capacity issues, such as use conflicts and resource impacts, as
appropriate or necessary.
Section 105: Permit Administration
This section would require the Forest Service to notify the public
online of available permit opportunities and the status of permit
applications. We would like to work with the Subcommittee and bill
sponsor to ensure that the Agency's current practices and processes for
operating seasons and prospectuses provide adequate notification of
permit opportunities within the Agency's existing funding and staffing
capabilities.
Section 106: Permits for Multijurisdictional Trips
We understand that the intent of this section is to authorize the
issuance of a single joint permit for multijurisdictional trips issued
by the lead agency under only the lead agency's authorities. To achieve
this intent, technical changes are needed to apply the lead agency's
authorities to Federal lands covered by the permit that are under the
jurisdiction of another Federal agency. Under existing authority in the
Service First statute, the lead agency merely has the delegated
authority to issue and administer a separate permit for use of another
Federal agency's lands under the laws applicable to that Federal
agency, rather than a single joint permit that covers Federal lands
administered by more than one Federal agency. We want to work with the
Subcommittee to confirm the intent of this section and ensure that it
aligns with that intent.
Section 107: Forest Service Permit Use Reviews
We would like to work with the Subcommittee to confirm the
appropriate scope of this section so that it applies only to outfitting
and guiding permits and to ensure that it does not duplicate existing
Forest Service policy.
Section 108: Liability
Subsection (a) of section 108 would preclude the Forest Service
from regulating waivers of liability for outfitting and guiding permits
and recreation event permits. Subsection (b) would exempt state
agencies and other entities from indemnifying the United States if they
are precluded by state or local law from doing so. Since environmental
liability is not limited by state law, we recommend that the
limitations on indemnity apply only to tort liability, not
environmental liability. We would like to work with the Subcommittee to
make targeted changes regarding liability and indemnification to ensure
proper implementation and protect the interests of the United States.
Section 109: Cost Recovery Reform
USDA supports efforts to responsibly apply cost recovery for
processing permit applications. However, section 109 would reduce the
Forest Service's ability to process simple and complex permit
applications. Cost recovery has provided more resources to the Forest
Service, enabling the Agency to enhance customer service by processing
applications faster. Currently, commercial recreation service providers
are exempt from cost recovery fees under Forest Service regulations for
applications that take 50 hours or less to process. The Agency is
undertaking a rulemaking effort to update the cost recovery regulations
and remove the exemption for commercial recreation service providers.
This proposed revision would help the Agency increase the level of
customer service provided to permit holders and prospective applicants
and would treat commercial recreation service providers the same as
non-recreation commercial service providers.
Expanding the scope of the cost recovery fee exemption as proposed
in the bill would provide a significant benefit to large commercial
recreation service providers by exempting the first 50 hours from a
cost recovery fee for complex applications that require more than 50
hours to process. By substantially reducing the amount of cost recovery
revenues available for collection, retention, and expenditure, this
bill would adversely affect the Agency's ability to staff the
processing of applications, thereby undermining the efficiencies gained
from other provisions in the bill and revisions to the Forest Service's
NEPA regulations. These efficiencies will sufficiently reduce
processing times such that limitations on the Forest Service's cost
recovery authority are unnecessary. We would like to work with the
Subcommittee and bill sponsors to enhance the Agency's authority under
the bill to recover costs for processing permit applications.
Section 110: Extension of Recreation Special Use Permits
This provision would provide for renewal of an existing permit
rather than issuance of a new permit upon expiration, which is the
Agency's current practice. We would like to work with the Subcommittee
to preserve the Agency's ability to update permit forms, including new
terms as necessary or appropriate, when a permit expires. This ability
is particularly important when a permit has been in effect for many
years. Additionally, priority use outfitting and guiding permits are
currently renewable. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, there is
no disruption of service upon expiration of an existing permit if a
timely application has been submitted, as the existing permit remains
in effect pending disposition of the application. We would like to work
with the Subcommittee to ensure this section does not duplicate
existing authority that is being fully and effectively utilized.
Title II--Making Recreation a Priority
USDA is generally supportive of Title II but would like to work
with the Subcommittee to ensure its provisions align with
implementation of other Administration priorities, such as addressing
climate change and racial equity. We are also concerned the provision
on recreation performance metrics could be interpreted as impairing the
multiple-use mission of the Forest Service under the Multiple Use--
Sustained Yield Act to the extent the provision purports to establish a
statutory preference for recreation.
Title III--Maintenance of Public Land
USDA supports the intent of Title III and looks forward to working
with the Subcommittee to ensure its provisions would include
traditional and non-traditional partners undertaking this important
work. We would like to work with the Subcommittee and bill sponsors to
ensure that current Agency programs implemented under the Volunteers in
the National Forests Act and existing cooperative authorities are not
duplicated.
Conclusion
USDA appreciates the recognition by this Subcommittee of the
importance of recreation on Federal lands to the national economy as
well as the Subcommittee's sustained interest in finding solutions to
recreation management challenges on Federal lands. We welcome
opportunities to work with this Subcommittee and bill sponsors where we
have noted concerns and the need for technical improvements on these
bills. I look forward to your questions.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Chris French, Deputy Chief
for National Forest Systems, U.S. Forest Service
Mr. French did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate
deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
Question 1. I am concerned about the trend of closing campsites
across the Ouachita National Forest.
1a) How many campgrounds and campsites are currently open in the
Ouachita National Forest?
1b) How does this compare to campgrounds and campsites open on
January 1, 2010?
1c) Does the Forest Service have plans to close or open any
campgrounds or campsites in the Ouachita National Forest?
Question 2. This Committee has heard from people across this
country about the closure of amenities on National Forest System Land.
2a) For Forest System lands, please provide the number of closures
since 2000 for campsites, campgrouqds, and day use areas. Please
provide the number of closures of miles of trails, roads, and routes
that served a recreational purpose, such as horseback riding, hiking,
or motorized vehicle activities, since 2000 across Forest System lands.
Questions Submitted by Representative Tiffany
Question 1. Administrative rules and decisions can make it
difficult to recreate outdoors. I have seen this in my district. There
have been a number of boat ramp closures in the Chequamegon-Nicolet
National Forest.
1a) How many have been closed in recent years? Have any reopened
and does the Forest Service have plans to reopen closed boat ramps?
1b) Across the National Forest System Land, how many boat ramps
have been closed in the last 10 years? Does the Forest Service have
plans to reopen these boat ramps?
1c) What be done to stop the closure of boat ramps on Forest System
Land?
1d) How can states partner with the Forest Service to take over
management of these boat ramps?
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Deputy Chief French. I would now
like to introduce Mr. Corey Mason, who is the Executive
Director of the Dallas Safari Club.
Mr. Mason, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF COREY MASON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DALLAS SAFARI
CLUB, DALLAS, TEXAS
Mr. Mason. Thank you, sir. Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member
Neguse, and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on H.R. 1614, the Range Access Act.
I am Corey Mason, CEO of Dallas Safari Club and DSC
Foundation. DSC and DSC Foundation are United States-based
conservation organizations that work with wildlife departments
and ministries worldwide to promote science-based wildlife
conservation and management programs. DSC and DSCF award
millions of dollars in annual conservation grants to support
wildlife resource and habitat management.
In addition to my duties as DSC and DSCF CEO, I also serve
as a board member for the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation,
on advisory committees for mule deer, whitetail, and desert
bighorn sheep. I am a member of IUCN's Sustainable Use and
Livelihoods Group, and I am a certified wildlife biologist.
Previously, I worked for Texas Parks and Wildlife, where I
served as Regional Director, Program Leader, and Management
Area Biologist.
These experiences have shown me how important public
shooting ranges are to help ensure safe and competent shooters
and ethical, skilled hunters in the United States. This is
especially true in the Western United States, where there is a
great deal of Federal land, yet very few places available to
practice target shooting, range safety and etiquette, or to
siting a rifle. The more American gun owners and hunters have
access to low or no-cost shooting areas, the more competent
they become.
While there may be debates over firearm ownership, I think
we can all agree that having safe, experienced, and skilled
firearm owners in America is incredibly important. This bill
will achieve this goal.
In 1937, Congress passed the Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Act, known today as Pittman-Robertson. This law has
generated over $15 billion to fund wildlife conservation,
habitat enhancement, hunter education, and build shooting
ranges in the United States. While I was in the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department, I saw the incredible impact of this
funding firsthand. Using PR [Pittman-Robertson] funds, state
conservation agencies employed biologists, technicians, and
researchers to conduct wildlife surveys, manage state-owned
lands, and meet with private landowners to develop management
plans, and conduct needed research.
What most people do not realize is that this funding is
generated through an excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and
equipment, and that funding is then distributed by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, to states. The results have been an
overwhelming success. Whitetail deer, prevalent across most of
the United States, were once in serious trouble, but have gone
from a low of 300,000 to now over 30 million. The same story is
true for hundreds of game and non-game species. From black bear
to alligator, turkey to elk, the Pittman-Robertson Fund has
enabled state fish and game agencies to conserve these species
and their habitats for all Americans to enjoy.
This Range Access Act helps to solve a more modern problem.
As the country grows, and more and more people move to suburbs,
wildland-urban interface and cities expand, many times a
shooting range that used to be on the outskirts of town, are
now, no longer welcome in new developments. Combine this with a
lack of private land in many Western states, and firearm owners
have little opportunity to practice. This is where National
Forest and BLM lands can make a huge difference and meaningful
difference.
With the Forest Service and BLM having roughly 400 million
acres under management, the agencies can identify areas where
shooting ranges can safely be constructed, while still meeting
multiple use mandates.
In closing, without hunters, shooters, and archers, the
wildly successful conservation programs built across America,
cease to exist. For these reasons, the Dallas Safari Club and
DSC Foundation strongly support the Range Access Act, and
encourage the Committee to pass the bill. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mason follows:]
Prepared Statement of Corey Mason, CEO of Dallas Safari Club
on H.R. 1614, the Range Access Act
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 1614, the
Range Access Act. I am Corey Mason, the CEO of Dallas Safari Club and
Dallas Safari Club Foundation. DSC and DSCF are United States-based
conservation organizations that work with Wildlife Ministries and
Departments worldwide to promote science-based wildlife management and
conservation programs. DSC and DSCF award millions of dollars in annual
conservation grants to support wildlife research, habitat management,
and other support programs that work to reduce human-wildlife conflict
abroad. Domestically, we have funded projects to support State Wildlife
Agencies conservation initiatives, including bighorn sheep, mule deer,
pronghorn, habitat restoration and connectivity, and water development.
Additionally, we have supported many programs to educate and inform
youth and the public on wildlife conservation principles and needs.
In addition to my duties as DSC and DSCF CEO, I also serve as a
board member for the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Frontline
Foundation Board, Texas Advisory Committee for mule deer, whitetail
deer and desert bighorn sheep, am a member of International Union for
Conservation of Nature's Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Group and I am
a Certified Wildlife Biologist. Previously, I worked for Texas Parks
and Wildlife Department, where I served as regional director, program
leader and management area biologist.
These experiences have shown me how important public shooting
ranges are to help ensure safe and competent shooters and ethical,
skilled hunters in the US. This is especially true in the western
United States where there is a great deal of federal land and yet very
few places available to practice target shooting, range safety and
etiquette or sight in a rifle. As is the case with most sports, the
more one practices, the better one gets. The more American gunowners
have access to low or no-cost shooting areas, the more competent they
become. The more hunters have access to low or no-cost shooting areas,
the better their marksmanship and the more ethical they are while
hunting. While there may be debates over firearm ownership, I think we
can all agree that having safe, experienced, and skilled firearm owners
in America is incredibly important. This bill will help to achieve this
goal.
As a conservation organization that is funded and supported by
hunters, you may wonder why we are testifying in support of a bill that
would help create more ranges on federal lands. The answer to that
question goes back to 1937 when Congress passed the Federal Aid in
Wildlife Restoration Act--known today as Pittman Robertson. This law
has generated over $15 billion to fund wildlife conservation, habitat
enhancement, hunter education and build shooting ranges in the US.
While I was at Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, I saw the
incredible impact of this funding firsthand. Using Pittman Robertson
funds, state conservation agencies employ wildlife biologists,
technicians, and researchers to conduct wildlife surveys, manage state
owned lands, meet with private landowners to develop management plans,
conduct needed research, and perform habitat projects. Turkeys are
restored, waterfowl and shorebird habitat is created and maintained,
and bighorn sheep habitat is conserved across mountain ranges.
What most people do not realize is this funding is generated
through an excise tax on firearms, ammunition and archery equipment--
whether or not the person purchasing the firearm or ammunition hunts,
the excise tax is applied, and that funding is then distributed by the
Fish and Wildlife Service to states.
The results have been an overwhelming success. Whitetail deer,
prevalent across most of the US, were once in serious trouble, but have
gone from a low of 300,000 to now over 30 million. The same story is
true for hundreds of game and non-game species: from black bears to
alligators and wild turkey to elk, the Pittman Robertson fund has
enabled state fish and wildlife agencies to conserve these species for
all Americans to enjoy. Further, the Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Act also authorized the construction and maintenance of
shooting ranges and hunter education courses. Hunter education
certification is required in the United States to ensure that all
hunters are safe and ethical.
I also must mention a disastrous bill introduced last Congress--the
RETURN Act (Repealing Excise Tax on Unalienable Right Now), which would
repeal the Pittman Robertson excise tax. This would leave state fish
and wildlife agencies with no way to fund conservation, hunter
education or shooting ranges. While this is not the topic of today's
hearing, I sincerely hope that this committee will oppose any attempt
to move this bill forward, as it would be the demise of wildlife
conservation in North America.
Back to H.R. 1614, this bill helps to solve a more modern problem.
As the country grows and more and more people move to suburbs, wildland
urban interface and cities expand, many times a shooting range that
used to be on the outskirts of town is now no longer welcome in newly
constructed residential areas. Combine this with the lack of private
land in many western states, and firearm owners have little opportunity
to practice. For many, in our fast-paced lives between working, raising
a family and other obligations, there is little time left to drive an
hour or two one-way to an already-crowded range. This is truly where
National Forests and Bureau of Land Management lands can make a huge
and meaningful difference. The Forest Service manages almost 190
million acres and the BLM manages almost 260 million acres for the
American people. With 450 million acres under management, the agencies
should be able to easily identify areas where shooting ranges could
safely be constructed while still meeting other multiple-use mandates.
The most important link between this bill and hunting and
conservation is the future of Pittman Robertson funding. Currently,
this fund is 100% dependent on firearm, ammunition, and archery
equipment purchases. No general fund or taxpayer dollars contribute to
this funding. Without hunters, shooters and archers, the wildly
successful conservation programs built across America by state fish and
wildlife agencies cease to exist. Additionally, it only seems fair that
the PR fund, funded by taxes on firearms, ammo, and archery equipment,
also provides a place for these purchasers to practice. For these
reasons, the Dallas Safari Club and DSC Foundation strongly supports
the Range Access Act and encourages the Committee to pass the bill.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Mason. And now I would like to
recognize the Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee for
the introduction of our next panel.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, and want to
make a warm welcome to all the panelists that are here today,
but I especially want to recognize one of my constituents, Mr.
Mike Mills, who is serving as the Secretary of the Department
of Parks, Heritage, and Tourism. It is a new job for him under
our new governor, Sarah Sanders. But Mike has a long, long
history of outdoor recreation. He has one of the most beautiful
places in the world, Buffalo Outdoor Center, up on the
headwaters of America's first wild and scenic national river,
the Buffalo National River.
Mike, welcome, and I am glad you are here today.
STATEMENT OF MIKE MILLS, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF PARKS,
HERITAGE, AND TOURISM, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
Mr. Mills. Thank you, Congressman. I am pleased to join you
today. I am really excited to be here at the Natural Resources
Committee, which is chaired by you. And you are a friend and a
fellow Arkansan, and we are proud of you and what you do for
the state of Arkansas.
My name is Mike Mills, and I am the Secretary of the
Department of Parks, Heritage, and Tourism. We try to seek to
do what our mission is there, which is to protect and promote
our state's natural, cultural, and historical resources,
contributing to a thriving economy and a high quality of life.
Since January, I have had the honor to serve as Secretary
under Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders for the people of
Arkansas. In her inaugural address, Governor Sanders cast a new
vision to unlock the full potential of the Natural State by
leveraging our state's unmatched natural beauty, and to promote
tourism, and to grow our outdoor economy. We want to ensure
that Arkansas does not just compete in this space, but rather
we envision Arkansas as a true national leader in outdoor
recreation and the outdoor economy. We plan to market the
beauty and the potential of the Natural State to the world for
recreational tourism and outdoor business opportunities.
My experiences have led me to this moment and this place.
As Founder of the Buffalo Outdoor Center in Ponca, Arkansas,
for over 40 years I have worked in partnership with the
National Parks, the National Forest Service, and the
surrounding community to build a business that provided access
to our country's first national river. Buffalo Outdoor Center
served as a guide and an access point for outdoor adventures
along the Buffalo River, one of Arkansas', and, frankly, one of
the world's, most beautiful and precious places.
Adventure runs through the heart of man, and to be able to
discover, feel, and share that, it will leave a lasting
impression for your heart. And it will be a gift that can span
generations. When thinking of that gift, the importance of
access to outdoor recreation is critical. Access provides our
residents and visitors across the world the ability to engage
with our greatest natural resources. These places are to be
enjoyed, respected, and revered, and we must conserve and
protect them for future generations.
The issue of access to these natural places leads me to the
reason I am here today. I am here to offer my support and to
convey the support of Governor Sanders for Congressman
Westerman's legislation which seeks to identify and develop
campsites at the Albert Pike Recreation Area. This unique area
has long been a draw for tourism and for outdoor recreation.
An unfortunate and unforeseen tragedy led to the area's
closure in 2010: a flood of the Little Missouri River resulted
in the death of 20 people. Since the area's closure, we have
come a long way in analyzing the flooding event and advancing
technology to prevent a similar outcome in the future. I
believe we are at a point in time where we must move forward to
make this special place accessible once again. In doing so, we
will open countless opportunities for young families, new
residents, and visitors, while providing our seasonal residents
with joy and adventure in a beloved location.
Arkansas and the access to her natural beauty is my life. I
have spent my entire career working through challenges that
come with building and operating an outdoor recreation
business. My experiences give me a unique perspective in this
new role, as we work to develop the next chapter of Arkansas'
story. I am excited to help craft the outdoor recreation
opportunities for future generations so that we can enjoy and
care for our natural resources.
There is a purpose and, quite frankly today, a need, for
children who spend more time inside hooked to screens and
isolated from nature, and this isolation creates a loneliness
and prevents a child from understanding community and greater
world outside. People are not meant to be isolated. We are
meant to explore, hike, hunt, fish, and discover and have fun.
Those joys are slipping out of our hands as we clutch onto
devices. The urgency is real. Our fight to get kids outside and
healthy and learn the Natural State is now. Our access to the
outdoors and these recreational opportunities give us the
greatest chance to encourage kids to experience the excitement
and rewards of nature.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mills follows:]
Prepared Statement of Secretary Mike Mills, Arkansas Department of
Parks, Heritage and Tourism
on H.R. 1667, Ouachita National Forest Overnight Camping Act
I am pleased to join you today. It's particularly exciting to be
here with the Natural Resources Committee, which is chaired by the
Honorable Bruce Westerman, my fellow Arkansan. We are proud of him. And
we are proud of the work he does in the service of Arkansas.
My name is Mike Mills. I am the Secretary of the Arkansas
Department of Parks, Heritage and Tourism. Where, with the hard work of
a dedicated staff of fellow Arkansans whom I'm deeply proud of, we seek
to meet our mission to protect and promote our state's natural,
cultural and historical resources, contributing to a thriving economy
and high quality of life.
Since January, I've had the honor to serve as secretary under
Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders for the people of Arkansas. In her
inaugural address, Gov. Sanders cast a new vision to unlock the full
potential of The Natural State by leveraging our state's unmatched
natural beauty to promote tourism and grow our outdoor economy.
We want to ensure that Arkansas does not just compete in this
space, but rather, we envision Arkansas as a true national leader in
outdoor recreation and the outdoor economy. We plan to market the
beauty and potential of The Natural State to the world for recreation
tourism and outdoor business opportunities.
All my experiences have led me to this moment and place. One of my
most valuable experiences has been my work in developing the Buffalo
Outdoor Center in Ponca. For over 40 years, I worked in partnership
with the National Park Service and the surrounding community to build a
business that provided access to our country's first national river,
the Buffalo National River. Our business served as a guide and access
point for outdoor adventures along the Buffalo River, one of
Arkansas's, and frankly the country's, most beautiful and precious
places.
Adventure runs through the heart of man and to be able to discover
that, feel that, share that--it will leave a lasting impression in your
heart forever. And it will be a gift that can span generations. I truly
believe that.
When thinking of that gift, the importance of access to the
outdoors is top of mind. Access provides our residents and visitors
across the world the ability to engage with our greatest natural
resources, which are gifts from God. These gifts are to be enjoyed,
respected and revered by us today, and we must conserve and preserve
them for future generations to also enjoy.
The issue of access to these natural places leads me to the reason
I am here today. I am here to offer my support and to convey the
support of Gov. Sanders for Congressman Westerman's legislation, which
seeks to identify and develop campsites at Albert Pike Recreation Area.
This unique area has long been a draw for tourism and outdoor
recreation in Arkansas, largely due to its beauty and its natural
offerings.
An unfortunate and unforeseen tragedy led to the area's closure. In
2010, a flash flood from the Little Missouri River resulted in the
death of 20 people. Since the area's closure, we've come a long way in
analyzing the flooding event and advancing technology to prevent a
similar outcome in the future. I believe we are at a point in time
where we must move forward to make this special place accessible once
again.
In doing so, we will open countless opportunities for young
families and new residents while providing our seasoned residents joy
and adventure in a beloved location. The plan that the Congressman has
set forth will allow thorough but pragmatic movement toward ultimately
reopening the Albert Pike campgrounds. It will provide access to the
rugged Ouachita Mountains and clear streams, providing hiking, fishing
and other recreational opportunities for all. I fully support the new
legislation and ask for your support.
Arkansas and the access to her natural beauty is my life. I've
spent my life and career working through challenges that come with
building and operating a business off that beauty. My experience gives
me a unique perspective in this new role as we work to develop the next
chapter in Arkansas's story. I'm excited to help craft outdoor
recreation opportunities for future generations so that they can enjoy
and care for nature just as we do.
My story of the Buffalo River is an important one, as it
illustrates one of Arkansas's greatest attributes: our relationships
and partnerships. Our people have long come together for our common
good--whether it is in business where relationships created companies
like Walmart, JB Hunt, Tyson, Dillard's and Stephens; and our
conservation of public lands like the Buffalo River, which is managed
by the National Park Service; to the development of our 52-state park
system--a crown jewel and arguably the best state parks system in the
country.
The Natural State is the mountain biking capitol of the world. The
Monument Trails are a collection of world-class, mountain biking
destinations within Arkansas State parks. Oz Trails is a world-class
network of shared-use trails in Bentonville, Arkansas that give
experiences unrivaled elsewhere. The duck-hunting capitol of the world
resides in our rice fields of the Delta.
Our relationships and partnerships have fostered immense
opportunity and provided access to public areas, which we continue to
build on today.
Gov. Sanders recently signed an Executive Order creating The
Natural State Initiative and appointed her husband, First Gentleman and
avid outdoorsman Bryan Sanders, to serve as chairman. The initiative
brings together some of the brightest minds in outdoor recreation from
across our state. These are businesspeople and conservationists who
have pioneered, developed and supported entrepreneurship and
recreational development, and excelled in their respective fields. We
are banding together under the common goal of providing diverse access
to our natural resources, focusing on our outdoor economy, both within
government and in the private sector. Adventure, if shared with the
world, will act as a powerful magnet that will benefit our state both
in quality of life and economic opportunity.
In Arkansas, we have been hard at work on big goals and seeing some
real movement. Places like Mena--where today our department is
partnering with local, U.S. Forest Service and private partners to
explore the full potential of trails that would connect our state park
atop a nearby mountain, through the National Forest right to Main
Street Mena, which is beautiful. In this way, we would capitalize on
existing infrastructure, welcome new uses and thus become a destination
for all to explore and enjoy. On the other side of the state, Arkansas
and our partner, the Walton Family Foundation, have invested $40
million to build the Delta Heritage Trail--a gravel trail that will
span almost 100 miles from Barton to Lexa. This trail will wind through
small Delta towns, revitalizing them by welcoming new businesses and
serving as a new tourist destination.
Our first state park, Petit Jean State Park, just celebrated its
100th year. At this park, we have forged a public-private partnership
to open access that will make it one of the best climbing destinations
in our state. We are also evaluating a Via Ferrata climbing system that
would allow the most novice climber to experience an epic climb.
Arkansas is home to various networked gravel routes, including the
Arkansas High Country Route, made up of long-existing infrastructure
that has become a gravel rider's dream. We are working alongside our
various public land partners to provide infrastructure that makes these
routes both exciting and supportive of travel.
Our state park system, in partnership with the nonprofit Arkansas
Parks and Recreation Foundation, has created a collection of world-
class mountain biking destinations that we call Monument Trails. These
shared-use trails are professionally crafted by some of the world's
best trail builders and are seamlessly woven into the beautiful
landscape of the Arkansas State Parks.
Just like we've done with our trails and gravel routes, multi-
agency and private partners are working to build greater access to our
rivers. You see, it is not just conservation and preservation. Access
to outdoor recreation inspires generations of Arkansans to care for and
champion the future of our natural places, ensuring that we remain The
Natural State.
All of this work is not just busy work. There is a purpose and,
quite frankly, a need. Today, children spend more time inside, hooked
to screens and isolated from nature. The isolation creates loneliness
and prevents a child from understanding community and the greater world
outside.
People are not meant to be isolated. We are meant to explore, run,
enjoy, hike, hunt, fish, discover and have fun. Those joys are slipping
out of our hands as we clutch onto devices. The urgency is real and our
fight to get kids outside, be healthy and learn about The Natural State
is now. We cannot wait. Our access to the outdoors and these
recreational opportunities gives us the greatest chance to encourage
kids to experience the excitement and rewards of time spent outdoors.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Secretary Mills, and I don't think
you could say it any better about getting our children outside.
Now I will introduce Mr. Chris Winter, Executive Director
of the Access Fund.
Mr. Winter, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS WINTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ACCESS FUND,
BOULDER, COLORADO
Mr. Winter. Good morning, everybody, it is nice to see
everybody.
My name is Chris Winter, of course. I am here on behalf of
Access Fund, which represents and advocates for more than 8
million climbers across the country. Thank you, Chairman
Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse and the rest of the
Subcommittee members, for considering my testimony this
morning, and we are honored to be here to support H.R. 1380,
the Protecting America's Rock Climbing Act.
We would also like to thank Congressmen Curtis and Neguse
for leading bipartisan support for this important initiative.
The Access Fund has worked for more than 30 years to ensure
that climbers can enjoy safe and sustainable access for
climbing, and we also lead our communities' efforts to protect
and care for the land.
Wilderness climbing is especially important for our
community, and wilderness climbing also epitomizes the
primitive and unconfined recreational uses that are protected
by the Wilderness Act. So, we strongly support the PARC Act,
because it will protect safe and sustainable access for
climbers on Federal public lands, establish consistent common-
sense wilderness policy that supports the purposes of the
Wilderness Act, promote economic development and job
opportunities in rural communities, save taxpayers millions of
dollars, and ensure ongoing support for new wilderness and land
conservation efforts from the outdoor recreation community.
The PARC Act has also been endorsed by the Outdoor Industry
Association, Outdoor Alliance, Outdoor Recreation Roundtable,
American Mountain Guides Association, USA Climbing, the
American Alpine Club, REI, as well as dozens of small
businesses and local conservation organizations around the
country.
At last count, climbing as a whole contributes to at least
$12.5 billion to the economy each year, and we are learning
more and more every day about the benefits of spending time
outside. Climbers feel a special connection to Federal
wilderness areas across the country, because they offer some of
the most iconic and historic climbing opportunities in the
world. Places like El Capitan in Yosemite National Park, the
Diamond on Longs Peak in Rocky Mountain National Park, these
places draw people from around the world because they offer
unmatched opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation
and solitude. And these are, indeed, the goals of the
Wilderness Act.
Despite this long history, management of climbing has been
inconsistent over the years and across the land management
agencies, which has resulted in waste of taxpayer resources and
serious threats to climbers' safety.
This confusion often relates to the use of fixed anchors in
wilderness areas. I have one in my hand here: a hanger. And
fixed anchors are essential pieces of the climbers' safety
system that allow adventurers to safely and sustainably access
what would otherwise be dangerous vertical terrain. Without
fixed anchors, many of the most inspiring places in America,
like the walls of El Capitan, would be mainly inaccessible for
the American public.
Although Federal land managers have allowed climbers and
other adventurers to use fixed anchors in wilderness areas
since the Act was passed almost 60 years ago, we are now facing
an unprecedented level of uncertainty and inconsistency. The
National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service have both moved
toward implementing a new nationwide prohibition on the use of
these fixed anchors in wilderness areas.
Under the new system being rolled out in Colorado and
California right now, all fixed anchors, including all the
existing fixed anchors that were lawfully placed over the last
60 years, would be deemed prohibited uses. They would be
managed through an untested and burdensome exceptions process.
This will result in land managers removing many appropriate
historic fixed anchors and climbing routes. And indeed, Joshua
Tree National Park has already announced that it will be
removing essential safety equipment from dozens and perhaps
hundreds of historic climbing routes.
The PARC Act, on the other hand, will bring consistency and
predictability to climbing management by providing the
community with clear direction from Congress, especially
regarding climbing management within wilderness areas. So, it
is a simple and elegant solution that will require the
Secretaries to issue national guidance on management of
climbing within wilderness areas; clarify that climbing and the
placement, use, and maintenance of fixed anchors are allowable,
and not prohibited uses within wilderness areas; preserve the
existing authority of the land management agencies to regulate
climbing to ensure it protects wilderness character and
provides for public participation in decisions affecting
climbing and climbers safety in wilderness areas.
Now, it is also important to note what the PARC Act does
not do. It does not amend the Wilderness Act. The land
management agencies have been treating fixed anchors and
climbing as allowable and not prohibited uses ever since the
Wilderness Act was passed in 1964, for almost 60 years. So, the
PARC Act provides congressional direction that reinforces this
existing and long-standing management approach. It does not
amend the Wilderness Act. On the contrary, it ensures its
consistent interpretation and application over time and across
the country.
Again, we would like to strongly support the PARC Act, and
thank you for considering our testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Winter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christopher Winter, Esq., Executive Director,
Access Fund
on H.R. 1380, Protect America's Rock Climbing Act
My name is Chris Winter, and I am here today on behalf of Access
Fund, which represents and advocates for the more than 8 million
climbers across the United States. I thank Chairman Tiffany, Ranking
Member Neguse, and the rest of the subcommittee members for considering
my testimony.
We are honored to be here today to support H.R. 1380--the
Protecting America's Rock Climbing Act (or PARC Act)--and we would like
to thank Congressmen Curtis and Neguse for leading bipartisan support
for this important initiative. Access Fund is the leading nonprofit
advocating for climbers in the United States. We have worked for more
than 30 years to ensure that climbers can enjoy safe and sustainable
access for climbing, and we also lead our community's efforts to
protect and care for the land. Our experiences in wild places inspire
us to become champions for conservation and protection of public lands.
We strongly support the PARC Act because it will:
1. protect safe and sustainable access for climbers on Federal
public lands across the country;
2. establish consistent, common-sense Wilderness policy that
supports the purposes of the Wilderness Act;
3. promote economic development and job opportunities in rural
communities;
4. save taxpayers millions of dollars; and
5. ensure ongoing support for new Wilderness and land conservation
efforts from the outdoor recreation community.
The PARC Act has also been endorsed by the Outdoor Industry
Association, Outdoor Alliance, Outdoor Recreation Roundtable, American
Mountain Guides Association, American Alpine Club, REI as well as
dozens of small businesses and local conservation organizations around
the country. We stand united in support of this bill.
I. Overview of the Protecting America's Rock Climbing Act
Climbing in the United States has a long and distinguished history
that includes many of the leading conservationists of our time,
including people like David Brower, William O. Douglas, Sally Jewell,
and Tommy Caldwell. What started out as a fringe activity enjoyed by a
few privileged adventurers has grown into a national pastime, with
climbing gyms sprouting up in diverse communities all across the
country and the debut of climbing at the most recent Olympics. At last
count there are over 8 million climbers in the country, and climbing as
a whole contributes at least $12.5 billion to the economy each year
(2019 State of Climbing Report). We are learning more and more every
day about the health, social, and economic benefits of spending time
outside and wilderness climbing is a key component of this experience.
There are approximately 40,000 crags in the United States--or
individual climbing areas--and nearly 60% of those are on federal
public lands. Climbers feel a special connection to federal Wilderness
areas across the country because they offer some of the most iconic and
historic climbing opportunities in the world. Places like El Capitan in
Yosemite National Park and the Diamond on Longs Peak in Rocky Mountain
National Park draw people from around the world because they offer
unmatched opportunities for adventure, recreation, and solitude. The
history of climbing in the United States dates back over a century and
has played out amongst the mountains and cliffs of the nation's
Wilderness areas.
Despite this long history, management of climbing has been
inconsistent over the years and across the land management agencies,
which has resulted in waste of taxpayer resources, serious threats to
climber safety, and unpredictability for rural gateway communities
attempting to build their outdoor recreation economies. Over the years,
many important climbing management initiatives have been scrapped
midway through the process because of confusion and uncertainty. This
confusion often relates to the use of fixed anchors in Wilderness
areas. Fixed anchors are essential pieces of the climber's safety
system that allow adventurers to safely and sustainably access
dangerous, vertical terrain. Without fixed anchors, many of the most
inspiring places in America--like the walls on El Capitan--would be
inaccessible to the American public.
Although federal land managers have allowed climbers and other
adventurers to use fixed anchors in Wilderness areas for almost 60
years, we are now facing an unprecedented level of uncertainty and
inconsistency. The NPS and U.S. Forest Service have both moved toward
implementing a new nationwide prohibition on the use of fixed anchors
in Wilderness areas. Under the new system being discussed, all fixed
anchors, including all the existing fixed anchors that were lawfully
placed over the last 60 years, would be deemed prohibited
``installations'' and would be managed through an untested and
burdensome exceptions process that will result in land managers
removing many appropriate, historic fixed anchors and climbing routes
(including necessary descent anchors). The uncertainty and
inconsistency of Wilderness climbing management are becoming more acute
by the day.
The PARC Act, on the other hand, will bring consistency and
predictability to climbing management by providing the land management
community with clear direction from Congress, especially regarding
climbing management within Wilderness areas. And this can be done all
while protecting Wilderness character and sensitive resources. It is a
simple and elegant solution that will:
a. Require the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to issue
national guidance on management of climbing within
Wilderness areas;
b. Clarify that climbing and the placement, use, and maintenance of
fixed anchors are allowable, and not prohibited, uses
within Wilderness areas;
c. Preserves the existing authority of land management agencies to
regulate climbing to ensure it protects Wilderness
characteristics, natural resources, and cultural values;
and
d. Provides for public participation in decisions affecting climbing
in Wilderness areas.
We do suggest limited but important technical amendments to the
bill. The text of the PARC Act currently references ``activities.'' The
Wilderness Act, however, refers to recreational and historic ``uses.''
To avoid confusion and to ensure consistency in the terminology, we
recommend that references to ``activities'' in the PARC Act be amended
to ``uses.'' In my written testimony, I have provided more detail on
our suggested technical amendments.
If climbing anchors are managed as prohibited uses across the 110
million acres of the Wilderness system, we are going to drive a harmful
wedge between the outdoor recreation community and the work to protect
public lands and promote conservation. We're facing the impacts of
climate change, economic challenges, funding challenges, and challenges
in getting people connected to the outdoors. Now more than ever, we
need to grow the coalition of champions for public lands and
conservation--not create new impediments to progress. The PARC Act will
ensure that climbers and the outdoor recreation community can continue
our long history of support for important conservation initiatives and
work collaboratively in partnership with the land management community
to protect Wilderness character while also allowing for appropriate
access to our federal public lands.
II. Introduction to Fixed Anchors and the Historic Nature of Wilderness
Climbing in America
Climbers have been exploring the mountains and cliffs of the United
States for more than 100 years, and those adventures have inspired many
people to become advocates for public lands and conservation.
Throughout that hisotry, climbers have depended on fixed anchors to
safely ascend and descend dangerous, vertical terrain. We of course use
ropes as a critical piece of our safety system, but the ropes
themselves are often useless without some way of attaching those ropes
to the snow, ice or rock that climbers navigate. Unless the ropes are
attached to the mountain, if a climber falls, the ropes will simply
fall down with them. If the rope is safely attached to the mountain,
however, it can arrest the fall and prevent an injury or fatality.
Thus, fixed anchors are an essential and irreplaceable component of
a climber's safety system. Whenever possible, since the 1970s, climbers
use removable protection that is not left behind. But many of the most
popular and most well known Wilderness climbing opportunities in
America would be inaccessible and unsafe without the use of fixed
anchors. Climbers have relied on fixed anchors for many of the most
historic ascents in the history of mountaineering, and climbers and
guides of today continue to rely on these tools. Climbing and the use
of fixed anchors are historic uses that long pre-date the Wilderness
Act itself.
Pitons are one type of fixed anchor and consist of a small ``pin''
of metal that is hammered into a crack in the rock. Pitons are still
used today although climbers have also developed more modern equipment,
like 3-4'' long metal expansion bolts. Both pitons and bolts are very
difficult or impossible to see unless you are within a few feet of
them, and they are usually invisible to everyone except the climbers
who are looking for and using them. Fixed anchors often enhance the
sustainability of outdoor recreation, because they allow people to use
more durable surfaces when navigating difficult terrain and because
they limit damage to vegetation and erosion that might otherwise result
from using trees or other natural features as anchors. And peer-
reviewed studies have shown that fixed anchors cause very little if any
ecological damage on their own simply by their presence.
Climbers are notoriously compulsive about recording our history,
and we have a wealth of knowledge about the historic use of fixed
anchors in areas that are now designated as Wilderness areas. A few of
those more well-known first ascents are discussed below, but we could
discuss many other examples, which are all well documented in climbing
guide books, the American Alpine Journal, the publications of regional
mountaineering clubs, and other historic publications like the Sierra
Club Bulletin.
In 1920, Albert Ellingwood and Barton Hoag climbed Lizard Head Peak
in Southwest Colorado using pitons along with their hemp rope and
hobnailed boots. Congress designated this area as the Lizard Head
Wilderness in 1980, 60 years after this historic climb.
In 1931, Norman Clyde led an ascent of the East Face of Mt. Whitney
in California's Sierra Nevada range using pitons. Congress designated
this area as the John Muir Wilderness in 1964, more than 30 years after
this historic climb.
In 1960, Bob Kamps and David Rearick made the first ascent of the
Diamond on Longs Peak in Rocky Mountain National Park using pitons as
fixed anchors. Congress designated this area as the Rocky Mountain
National Park Wilderness in 2009, 49 years after this historic first
ascent.
These three examples begin to paint the picture of the rich history
of climbing and mountaineering in this country, and they also show how
climbing and use of fixed anchors long predate the Wilderness Act and
the designation of Wilderness areas across the country. These are truly
historic recreational uses--that Congress was aware of when enacting
the Wilderness Act and passing individual Wilderness bills--that have
contributed to outdoor legacy and mountain culture that Americans enjoy
today.
Finally, it is worth mentioning one more example of the historic
nature of climbing and the use of fixed anchors. President Biden
recently created the Camp Hale--Continental Divide National Monument to
honor the contributions of the 10th Mountain Division. The 10th
Mountain Division of course trained at Camp Hale prior to fighting in
World War II and developed many of the techniques used today for
climbing, skiing, and moving through risky, vertical terrain. The
Proclamation designating Camp Hale calls out the ``original pitons used
to train technical climbing'' and then declares them to be ``an object
of scientific or historic interest in need of protection under 54
U.S.C. 320301.''
In short, the history of climbing and exploration of areas that are
now designated as Wilderness contributes to the rich legacy and culture
of outdoor adventure in the United States. The PARC Act will help to
protect and celebrate this history so that it may inspire future
generations of outdoor enthusiasts who will continue to visit and
explore and fall in love with these special places.
III. Modern Management of Fixed Anchors in Wilderness Areas
Since the Wilderness Act was passed in 1964, federal agencies have
managed climbing and fixed anchors as allowable uses in Wilderness
areas around the country with few exceptions. Climbers partner in this
work because we have a strong ethic of caring for the land and
minimizing the use of fixed anchors, relying on removable protection
whenever possible.
Modern management of climbing in wilderness areas typically
involves the following elements:
a. The use of power drills in Wilderness areas is strictly
prohibited. All fixed anchors must be placed by hand
without the use of motorized equipment. This is a time
consuming and laborious process that serves as a natural
and effective limitation on the proliferation of fixed
anchors.
b. Each park unit or district has flexibility in managing fixed
anchors so they can tailor their approach to local
conditions. For instance, Yosemite and Rocky Mountain
National Parks provide programmatic authorization for the
appropriate placement and use of fixed anchors. In some but
not all places, prior approval is needed before placing new
fixed anchors or replacing aging fixed anchors in
Wilderness. Other public land units may manage climbing
through a dedicated climbing management plan or have
climbing provisions in a comprehensive land use plan.
c. Land managers retain authority under the Wilderness Act to close
areas to climbing or to limit climbing to protect
Wilderness characteristics, natural resources, or cultural
values. For instance, climbers and land managers often
partner to implement seasonal closures of climbing areas to
protect nesting raptors.
d. Individual national park units or U.S. Forest Service districts
are encouraged to develop climbing management plans that
lay out more detail on how they will manage sustainable
climbing access and conserve and protect climbing areas.
e. Climbers often partner with land managers to steward climbing
areas and educate the climbing community on low impact
practices and access regulations designed to protect
Wilderness character and resource values.
This approach to managing climbing is largely working, especially
where collaborative, adaptive management principles are applied. In
some places, like Joshua Tree National Park, visitation levels and
environmental conditions require more regulation and management as well
as public education and active stewardship. In other places, like the
Brooks Range in Northern Alaska, Wilderness climbing takes place in
extremely remote areas that are difficult for the public to access,
requiring a much different approach to climbing management.
Climbing guides rely on fixed anchors in places like Yosemite and
Zion National Parks to share the Wilderness climbing experience with
their clients. Rural gateway communities like Joshua Tree, California,
Moab, Utah, and Estes Park, Colorado depend on visitation to power
their local economies and create jobs. And new generations of climbers
continue to advocate for new Wilderness areas and the Wilderness Act
itself.
Most recently, the climbing community advocated strongly in support
of the 2019 John D. Dingell Conservation, Management, and Recreation
Act. In that landmark piece of legislation, thanks in large part to the
work of Congressman Curtis, Congress designated approximately 663,000
acres of new Wilderness in Emery County, Utah, a place that has been
explored by climbers for decades. The Dingell Act states explicitly
that the Wilderness designation does not prohibit the placement, use or
maintenance of fixed anchors. Access Fund generated over 7,000 comments
in support of the Dingell Act. Currently other proposed Wilderness
bills have similar language regarding climbing anchors, such as the
CORE Act in Colorado, and the Northwest California Wilderness,
Recreation, and Working Forests Act in California. The PARC Act will
build on the Wilderness climbing guidance provided by Congress in 2019
with the Dingell Act and provide consistency for future Wilderness
proposals.
IV. Land Management Agencies Are Moving Aggressively to Implement a
nationwide Prohibition on Fixed Anchors in Wilderness, Which
Threatens the Safety of Climbers Across the Country
Although federal land managers have allowed climbers to use fixed
anchors in Wilderness areas since the Act was passed since 1964, the
National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service have recently moved
toward implementing a nationwide prohibition on fixed anchors as
prohibited uses--``installations''--under Section 4(c) of the Act.
Under this new approach, all existing and new fixed anchors would be
allowed only as exceptions to the generally applicable prohibition and
would be strictly regulated by an untested and burdensome exceptions
process subject to environmental review, administrative appeal, and
litigation by groups that oppose climbing in Wilderness areas. Thus,
fixed anchors, the most basic safety equipment relied upon by climbers
for primitive recreation for more than a hundred years, would now be
generally prohibited in Wilderness areas like other prohibited uses in
Section 4(c) such as ``temporary roads,'' ``motor vehicles,''
``motorboats,'' ``landing of aircraft'' and ``structures.'' Moreover,
the Park Service, for now, has decided on this course of action without
allowing any public notice and comment on how the Wilderness Act should
be interpreted and applied and without any nationwide rulemaking
process.
Importantly, the climbing community has been collaborating with the
National Park Service for decades on management and stewardship of
climbing and fixed anchors across the country. These collaborations
have been largely focused on the development and implementation of
Director's Order #41, issued in 2013 after public notice and comment,
which plainly does not regulate fixed anchors as prohibited
installations.\1\ At no point since the Wilderness Act was passed in
1964 has the National Park Service managed fixed anchors as prohibited
installations as a matter of national policy. The Park Service did not
consult with its long-standing partners in the recreation and
conservation communities before changing course.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DO41 states that:
Authorization will be required for the placement of new fixed
anchors or fixed equipment. Authorization may be required for the
replacement or removal of existing fixed anchors or fixed equipment.
The authorization process to be followed will be established at the
park level and will be based on a consideration of resource issues
(including the wilderness resource) and recreation opportunities.
DO41, Section 7.2. If the NPS had decided in DO41 that fixed
anchors are prohibited installations, this section would have instead
referred to a Minimum Requirements Analysis as the authorization
process for review of all fixed anchors. DO41 sections that regard
prohibited uses, such as invasive species management, all assign the
Minimum Requirements Analysis. Indeed, the only mention of an MRA
process in DO41 is right after the anchor authorization process
discussion and relates only to agency search and rescue operations and
not the permitting of fixed anchors for public recreational use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Park Service first announced its new interpretation of
the Wilderness Act as it was beginning to prepare a new Climbing
Management Plan (CMP) for Joshua Tree National Park. On May 10, 2022,
before a draft of the new CMP had even been released for public
comment, the NPS announced in an email ``Scoping Update'' that it had
predetermined that fixed anchors are prohibited installations under the
Wilderness Act. In a public scoping meeting on the Joshua Tree Climbing
Management Plan, the National Park Service stated that fixed anchors
would be treated as a ``prohibited use'' akin to ``any other kind of
machine like that.'' \2\ It is extremely unusual for an agency to
announce its interpretation of a statute in this way before a draft
plan has been released or before formal public comment on that draft or
the issue of statutory interpretation. The die had been cast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A video recording of the scoping meeting is available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYIZp7agSk8. The comments regarding the
prohibition on fixed anchors can be viewed at 1:13.45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, on December 23, 2022, the National Park Service published an
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for a
Wilderness and Backcountry Management Plan for the Black Canyon of the
Gunnison National Park in Colorado. In the EA/FONSI, the Park Service
again stated that it had deemed fixed anchors to be prohibited
installations under the Wilderness Act. The Park Service stated that
every existing climbing route would be reviewed ``as soon as possible''
for prohibited fixed anchors. The Park Service did not describe how it
would handle existing fixed anchors after this review, raising the
specter that it would begin removing this critical safety equipment
from historic climbing routes that are still enjoyed by the climbers of
today. The Park Service did not invite public comment on how this new
exceptions process should be set up and applied, nor did it seek input
from partners that had been working collaboratively with the agency for
decades on sustainable climbing access in NPS Wilderness areas.
We also understand that the U.S. Forest Service is in the process
of preparing nationwide guidance that may treat fixed anchors as
prohibited installations. We have yet to hear how the agency proposes
to manage all the existing fixed anchors climbers have placed lawfully
over the last 60 years at dozens of Wilderness areas across the
country.
In response to these developments, on November 29, 2022 Colorado
Governor Jared Polis wrote \3\ to Secretaries Haaland and Vilsack
opposing this change in policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ November 29, 2022 letter from Governor Polis to Secretaries
Haaland and Vilsack, found at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/
638927954320c12d8056bbbd/t/64054f4f65d36f6d04fe6c56/1678069583277/
DOI+_+USFS+Fixed+Anchors+Wilderness+Policy+Letter.docx.pdf.
I understand that the National Park Service and U.S. Forest
Service are considering a proposal to prohibit fixed anchors in
designated Wilderness as `installations.' I believe this would
be a serious mistake, and I urge you to ensure that this does
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
not happen.
* * *
If a prohibition on fixed anchors was implemented, all existing
fixed anchors would be prohibited by law unless and until land
management agencies determine that they are entitled to a
statutory exception under Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act.
The exception process is wasteful and unnecessary because
Federal agencies already have the authority to successfully
manage sustainable climbing in Colorado Wilderness areas.
As Governor Polis notes, a prohibition on fixed anchors is
completely unnecessary because federal land management agencies
currently have all the legal authority they need to manage climbing
effectively in Wilderness areas while protecting Wilderness character.
Why is it necessary to suddenly treat fixed anchors as prohibited
installations? The NPS and USFS have not identified any gaps in their
existing legal authority that they are attempting to address through
this change in policy.
Finally, we feel compelled to underscore the serious safety threats
for the climbing community that will likely result from a change in
policy. Fixed anchors are absolutely essential for the safety of
climbers and other adventurers in dangerous terrain and extreme
conditions, and if federal land managers start removing existing fixed
anchors, as the NPS has said that it intends to do, it will likely lead
to injuries or fatalities. These concerns are based on real world
experiences, as detailed in a recent story by NBC news about an
accident in North Cascades National Park involving a fixed anchor that
had been removed by NPS staff. While we can't know for certain whether
this incident was caused directly by the removal of the fixed anchor,
it may very well have been a contributing factor, and we feel for the
family of the climber who must live with the uncertainty.
Moreover, climbers take it upon themselves to regularly maintain
and replace aging fixed anchors, especially on more popular and
moderate climbing routes frequented by guides and visiting climbers
from around the world. The confusion and uncertainty created by a new
nationwide prohibition is likely to interfere with these very important
anchor maintenance activities, which will also add to unnecessary
safety risks for the climbing community as well as unneeded stress on
search and rescue teams and associated resources.
V. The PARC Act Will Protect Climber Safety, Promote Conservation, Save
Taxpayer Dollars, and Promote the Outdoor Recreation Economy
The PARC Act, with the amendments we have suggested, will solve
this problem for the climbing community, land managers, and the
American public. It will likely save lives. It will save money. It will
promote collaboration in the stewardship and protection of climbing
areas. And it will protect the many small guides, outfitters and other
small businesses around the country that are creating living-wage jobs
and contributing to the growing outdoor recreation economy.
Importantly, the existing system is working, but land managers need
help clarifying how it should be implemented and they need help getting
it done. Whatever the policy used, it should not be a ``one-size-fits
all'' solution akin to a national prohibition on fixed anchors: Joshua
Tree National Park near Los Angeles is not the same as Wilderness in
North Cascades National Park. The national guidance required in H.R.
1380 can provide that clarity. With that policy in place, land managers
will be able to focus on developing site-specific climbing management
plans that address climbing as allowable uses and that focus on how to
manage those uses to protect wilderness characteristics, natural
resources, and cultural values. The climbing community is eager to
collaborate in that work, and we will help to get it done if we are not
forced into a corner to defend the legitimacy of our most basic safety
equipment.
All of these factors point to the urgent need for urgent
Congressional direction. The PARC Act will set a baseline for the land
management and climbing community, it will create the conditions
necessary for effective collaboration, it will minimize conflict, and
it will ultimately lead to better results for the land and for the
American public. We strongly urge this Committee to pass the PARC Act
with our suggested amendments, and we are ready to assist in any way we
can.
VI. Proposed Technical Amendment to the PARC Act
To provide additional clarity and consistency, we have suggested
limited technical amendments to the PARC Act, which are detailed below.
Those suggestions include:
Amend ``activities'' to ``uses'' to ensure that the
terminology is consistent with the Wilderness Act and
clarify that the allowable uses are not ``prohibited.''
Add Section 2(b), which refers to a joint explanatory
statement from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
(Public Law 116-260; 134 Stat. 1185).
Amend Section 2(c)(2) to change the emergency period to 1
year from 2 years.
Add Section 2(c)(3) to ensure public notice and comment on
the guidance required in Section 2(a)(1).
*****
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Winter. I would like to
introduce our final witness for the panel, Ms. Geraldine Link,
Director of Public Policy at the National Ski Areas
Association.
Ms. Link, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GERALDINE LINK, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY,
NATIONAL SKI AREAS ASSOCIATION, LAKEWOOD, COLORADO
Ms. Link. Thank you. Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member
Neguse, and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony on H.R. 930, the SHRED Act.
On behalf of NSAA, I would like to thank Representatives
Curtis, Kuster, Neguse, and LaMalfa for their leadership in
introducing this bipartisan measure to retain ski area permit
fees locally.
NSAA has over 330 ski area members, 124 of which operate on
National Forest System lands across 13 states, and I want to
say that I am completely neutral on which state has the
greatest snow on Earth.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Link. The SHRED Act would retain ski area permit fees
in the forests in which they were generated. It would retain
those fees and reinvest them in recreation, so that the Forest
Service, our most important partner, has the capacity to
administer ski area permits, review ski area infrastructure
projects, carry out recreation maintenance, and support a whole
range of much-needed visitor and trailhead services outside of
ski area boundaries.
Over the past 10 years, ski areas nationwide have averaged
about 55 million skier visits annually. Approximately 60
percent of those visits occur on public land. In total, the ski
industry supports over 530,000 jobs, and generates $58 billion
in economic activity. Public lands ski areas are often the
largest employer in the communities in which they operate.
Fee retention, as outlined in the SHRED Act, is an
important tool for dedicating funds to the Forest Service
Recreation Program. This legislation would allow permittees to
invest more and sooner in much-needed infrastructure. To
provide an example, Alterra Mountain Company, with 15 resorts
in its portfolio, recently announced a $500 million capital
investment program to enhance guest and employee experience
across its resorts. These investments in chair lifts,
snowmaking, summer adventures, guest amenities, and employee
housing, are critical to the guest experience and the future
success of the operations.
Ski area investment projects on public land are complex.
They rely on Forest Service staffing and bandwidth to provide
oversight, review, approval, monitoring, and administration.
The reality we are facing as an industry is that funding and
staffing of the Forest Service Recreation Program is lacking.
And as a result, ski areas are less likely to receive timely
reviews of project proposals. Many projects are put off to
future years.
To be clear, I am not being critical of the Forest Service
officials dedicated to the recreation program. Their hands are
tied by lack of resources and staffing, because ski area fees
are not currently being reinvested in recreation.
This need to dedicate ski area fees to recreation exists
against a backdrop of spiking public demand. Of the 10 most
visited forests nationwide, 9 of them host ski areas. During
the 2021/2022 season, ski areas experienced an all-time record
of 60.7 million skier-snowboarder visits. There is tremendous
interest among resorts in harnessing this momentum and building
the infrastructure necessary to support future growth. The
SHRED Act is critical to allowing this to happen.
The SHRED Act is consistent with previous Federal actions,
including the local retention of recreation fees under FLREA.
It does not require new spending, but the CBO does score this
legislation because it moves resources from one account to
another. We ask that the Committee work with us for any
clarifications necessary on that front as we continue to
discuss this important issue.
In closing, we urge the Committee's support of the SHRED
Act, and thank you for the opportunity to present this
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Link follows:]
Prepared Statement of Geraldine Link, Director of Public Policy,
National Ski Areas Association
on H.R. 930--The Ski Hill Resources for Economic Development Act of
2023
Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on H.R.
930, the Ski Hill Resources for Economic Development (SHRED) Act of
2023. On behalf of the National Ski Areas Association (NSAA), I would
like to thank Representatives Kuster, Curtis, Neguse, and LaMalfa for
their leadership in introducing this bipartisan measure to retain ski
area permit fees locally.
NSAA has over 300 ski area members, 124 of which operate on
National Forest System lands across 13 states. The SHRED Act would
retain ski area permit fees in the forests where they were generated.
It would retain those funds so that the Forest Service has the capacity
to administer ski area permits, review ski area infrastructure
projects, carry out recreation maintenance, and support visitor
services.
Background
Public land resorts work in partnership with the U.S. Forest
Service to deliver an outdoor recreation experience unmatched in the
world. Dating back to the 1940s, it is a public-private partnership
that benefits all Americans by supporting public health and fitness,
fostering an appreciation for our natural environment, and providing
returns to the US government through fees paid for use of the land.
Over the past ten years, ski areas nationwide have averaged over 55
million visits annually. Approximately 60 percent of those visits occur
on public land. In total, the US ski and snowboard industries support
over 533,000 jobs and generate $58 billion in economic activity.
Public land ski areas are typically the largest employer for the
communities in which they operate. Ski areas pay for all on-site
improvements, including roads, parking lots, and chair lifts, along
with the processes required to review and approve such projects. The
ability of ski areas to move forward as a business is inextricably
linked to our most important partner, the U.S. Forest Service, having
the capacity to review proposals and render a decision.
Fee retention, as outlined in the SHRED Act, is an important tool
for boosting the agency's capacity to review ski area proposals. This
legislation would allow ski areas to invest more and sooner in much
needed infrastructure at public land resorts.
Need for Ski Fee Retention
Retaining ski fees locally is necessary because funding and
staffing of the Forest Service Recreation Program sits 40 percent below
year 2000 levels. Meanwhile, visitation to these lands has steadily
grown, increasing by over 30 percent in the last decade. The Forest
Service's own data show that 85 percent of visitors to our national
forests are seeking recreation opportunities. Of the 10 most visited
forests nationwide, 9 of them host ski areas, attracting millions of
visitors who spend money in local economies.
Ski areas are less likely to receive timely reviews of project
proposals when forests are operating at low permit administration
capacity. For example, ski areas have experienced ``pauses'' during
which proposals are not accepted by the agency for extended periods of
time. On some forests, the agency's lack of bandwidth limits them to
reviewing one project at a time.
When projects are delayed and timelines are uncertain, ski areas--
like all businesses--find it harder to invest significant resources.
This means that ski areas are slower to replace ageing lifts, upgrade
to energy efficient snow guns, and transition to a four-season model
capable of supporting jobs and recreation all year long.
Benefits of Ski Fee Retention
The uncertainty resulting from the capacity shortages has delayed
or, at times, shelved ski area infrastructure projects that would have
benefited workers, guests, and communities. Dedicating part of the $44
million in fees paid annually by ski areas to boost agency staffing
will help unlock new investment opportunities and accommodate the spike
in demand for outdoor recreation.
Since 2010, ski areas operating on Forest Service lands have
experienced 36 percent revenue growth from winter sports activities and
126 percent from summer activities. During the 2021/2022 season, ski
areas experienced an all-time record of 60.7M skier/snowboarder visits.
There is tremendous interest among resorts in harnessing this momentum
and building the infrastructure necessary to support future growth. The
SHRED Act is critical to funding and staffing the agency at the levels
needed to address increasing recreation demands.
The SHRED Act is consistent with previous federal actions,
including the local retention of recreation user and permit fees
through the Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act. It does not
require any new spending, but the Congressional Budget Office does
score this legislation because it moves resources from one account to
another. We ask that the Committee work with us for any clarifications
necessary on that front as we continue to discuss this important issue.
In closing, we urge the Committee's support of the SHRED Act. Thank
you for the opportunity to provide this testimony.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Ms. Link. And now I would like to
recognize Members for 5 minutes for questions.
First, I would like to turn to the Chairman, Mr. Westerman.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, and thank you
again to all the witnesses.
It is unfortunate that this hearing is on a day when H.R. 1
is on the House Floor. I have already been given the signal I
need to leave, but I told them to give me just a few minutes,
because this is so important. And it is very critical to the
goals of what we have on our Committee, and that is to have
access to public lands.
And when you think about recreation, and as I listened to
the testimony, it all comes down to access. For the American
public to be able to use American lands, for us to be good
stewards of the public lands that we have, to leave them in
better shape for future generations, we have so much potential
with all the public lands that we have. I know with all the
issues that the world faces and that take place in Congress,
consistently since I have been here, I have gotten more
questions from constituents about access to public lands. And I
have two national forests, a couple of National Park
properties, and five U.S. Fish and Wildlife refuges in my
district, and there are issues with access.
And I will say this: Arkansas does it as well as anyone in
the country, as far as providing access. But there is
tremendous upside potential, and I hope that we can work in a
bipartisan manner to make sure that Americans have more access
to our public lands.
Secretary Mills, in your testimony, you mentioned Governor
Sanders' Natural State Initiative, which is designed to help
foster many new recreation partnerships and opportunities in
Arkansas. As we look to craft comprehensive Federal legislation
that addresses outdoor recreation, that addresses access, can
you please tell us more about the initiative in Arkansas, and
what Arkansas is doing to encourage recreation at a state level
that, I would say, should be modeled at the Federal level?
And you might put a plug in for what I always say are the
second-to-none state parks in the world. The Arkansas State
Park System is phenomenal.
Mr. Mills. Congressman, it is my honor to be in charge of
all 52 state parks in Arkansas.
And the Governor has appointed her husband, Brian Sanders,
as head of the Arkansas Natural Initiative. And that initiative
is to put the state of Arkansas and its partners on the world
stage of outdoor recreation.
We are fortunate to have the Walton Family Foundation, the
Murphy Foundation, the Stephens Foundation, people in the
private enterprise investing in outdoor recreation
opportunities within Arkansas. We fully intend to make that a
model for the United States. And in some ways, we want to play
on the world stage.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you. Godspeed to everyone.
I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Next, I would like to
turn to the Ranking Member, Mr. Neguse, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Neguse. I thank the Chairman and the Chairman of the
Full Committee.
I think we have a great set of bills, as I said in my
opening remarks, for this Subcommittee to consider today. And I
couldn't agree more with the Chairman. I think every one of the
bills is rooted in this principle of access, of trying to
increase access to our beautiful outdoors. And most, if not
all, members of this Committee have public lands within their
respective Congressional districts, and access to outdoor
recreation is an important priority that stretches across the
partisan lines of Congress. So, I am very grateful for each of
your testimonies.
And, of course, I am very excited to see these bills be
marked up, in particular the SHRED Act. I thought your summary
of the numerous benefits that will inure to local communities
as a result of the SHRED Act was very well said. I mean, tens
of millions of dollars for ski resorts and local communities,
ultimately, to be able to leverage these resources back in our
local communities and address some of the deferred maintenance
challenges, the permit issues that you referenced. It is
certainly very important in my state of Colorado.
And I know there has been a lot of talk about ski resorts
and ski communities, and which states have the claim to being
the best state. I will just say that Colorado has, I think, 32
ski resort communities, and Utah has 15. Mr. Moore has left the
room, and isn't in a position to defend the propriety of his
state.
But in any event, I digress, very glad to hear that the
Forest Service is supportive of the SHRED Act, and also that
you all are willing to work with the sponsors on some of the
other bills that I have either introduced or am co-sponsoring,
in particular the SOAR Act and the BOLT Act.
I wanted to talk a bit about, Representative Curtis isn't
here, and I suspect he will talk about this during his 5
minutes, but the PARC Act, and kind of zero in on the issue
that was described around the current rulemaking that the
agency is engaged in. And I have to say I was surprised by the
opposition from your agency to the bill, and I guess I am
trying to better understand how the agency is making the
argument that simultaneously the legislation is unnecessary
because the agency is engaged in rulemaking, but then also
making the argument that the legislation would essentially
amend the Wilderness Act, and so therefore, on that basis, the
agency opposes it. That seems like a contradiction.
Mr. French. I am assuming that question is for me, Ranking
Member.
Mr. Neguse. Yes.
Mr. French. Yes, thank you. I mean, it comes down to two
things. One, the guidance that tells us to derive these
directives is already in place. It came through in the, I
think, 2021 omnibus report language. We have been pursuing that
and working directly with a number of constituents of how you
do it.
The USDA believes that by creating a very specific call-out
on an acceptable use of the Wilderness Act, that you are
essentially creating a de facto change to the Wilderness Act,
and believes that we can go forward and meet the goals that are
stated in your bill and that we have heard through advocacy
groups for climbing in wilderness in a manner that doesn't do
that.
We are very close on delivering our directives that will
address this going out for public comment. And I believe that
you will see that almost every issue that has been brought
forward in your bill will be addressed.
Mr. Neguse. On that front, I guess, because my
understanding is, as we heard from one of the other witnesses,
there are a number of national forests that have, in effect,
changed the rules of the game, that have begun to treat these
fixed anchoring devices differently than they have been treated
previously during the sort of pendency of the Wilderness Act
the last 60 years or so. Why not simply direct those forests,
or rather the supervisors within those forests, to repeal the
policies that they have enacted? Because that strikes me as--
were the agency to do that, then it would render the
legislation unnecessary.
But my concern, as you probably can imagine, is if the
agency is arguing that this legislation is unnecessary because
the agency intends to take steps to achieve the goals of the
legislation, while simultaneously saying that it opposes the
legislation because the legislation undermines, in their the
agency's view, the Wilderness Act, that doesn't strike me as an
agency that is likely to be concurring with my assessment and
Representative Curtis' assessment and the assessment of many
other stakeholders as to how fixed anchor devices and others
should be treated.
Mr. French. Yes, I mean, I think it is a great question.
The examples that Mr. Winter brought forward, I believe
they are all primarily Park Service examples. And I would focus
those questions to the Park Service.
What is true and has created this problem is that there is
a lack of guidance. And when you have a lack of guidance, you
have inconsistency of local decision making. And the reason
that we are going out with these directives, as required in the
language of the omnibus, is to clarify that. And that will
bring that consistency across the board, Ranking Member.
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, and I yield back my time.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Neguse. Now I would like to
recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I served as
Chairman of this Subcommittee, we set three overarching
objectives: to restore good management of the public lands, to
restore public access to the public lands, and to restore the
Federal Government as a good neighbor to the communities that
are directly affected by the public lands. And it is good to
see this Subcommittee returning to those principles.
Preserving our Federal lands for future generations does
not mean that we should close them to the current generation.
We began setting aside lands with the Yosemite Grant Act that
involved my district, signed by Abraham Lincoln in 1864. The
purpose of that Act was to guarantee these lands for public
``use, resort, and recreation for all times.'' Yet, in the last
50 years we have seen the environmental left replace this with
a very different policy that can best be described as look, but
don't touch.
We have watched increasingly draconian restrictions placed
on the people's ability to use, resort, and recreate on the
people's lands. That was the maxim of the king's forests.
During the Norman and Plantagenet era, a third of the English
countryside was declared off limits to commoners. It was
reserved exclusively for the king, the king's foresters, and
the king's cronies. Public use of these lands was strictly
prohibited. These policies were so resented by the English
people that no fewer than five clauses of the Magna Carta were
devoted to redress their grievances.
The purpose of America's public lands is exactly the
opposite of the old kings of England. It is to set aside the
most beautiful or bountiful lands in America, and to guarantee
that the American people have full access to them to use,
resort, and recreate, and to develop our bountiful resources to
the benefit of the American people. It is good to see that the
Subcommittee is returning to these principles, and that the
House is returning to those principles. Soon, I hope we will
see the entire Federal Government return to those principles.
Other than that, I have no questions of the panel. I will
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. McClintock. Next, I would like
to recognize the gentlewoman from Alaska, Mrs. Peltola.
Mrs. Peltola. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany. I apologize for
coming in late.
I was very interested to hear the remarks of Mr. Mills, but
my question is really for Mr. Mason.
And Mr. Mills, I really identified with what you were
talking about, with young people not getting outdoors enough.
Five of my kids are grown now, and two are yet in high school.
But when the older kids were in junior high, when it was time
to go to a fish camp, it was almost painful to get them off of
their devices and away from their games. But as soon as we got
to the boat harbor, they were back in action. And all of their
senses were there again, and they would have a great day
outdoors. And by the time they were in high school, they were
going out bird hunting after school, and really appreciating
being outdoors. So, sometimes it is not easy introducing kids
to the outdoors, and kind of forcing them away from their
games, but I really appreciated what you said.
But Mr. Mason, I apologize for not hearing your testimony.
I would like you to speak a little bit more about the positive
impacts of the Pittman-Robertson funding, and the importance of
making sure that we have access to ranges where we can teach
our kids how to be good shots, how to handle firearms in a safe
way, and make sure that we are not injuring our game and having
to track them or not being able to track them, and just some of
the conservation efforts that are accomplishable because of the
Pittman-Robertson funds.
And I also want to commend Texas on your online hunter
education course. It is applicable in other states, and it has
been very useful for me, in particular. But if you could just
expound on some of your comments, please.
Mr. Mason. Thank you for the question. The Pittman-
Robertson Fund, this most current year, provided $1.2 billion
to game and fish agencies to do the needed conservation work in
which they have the force multiplier of non-Federal dollars to
match the Pittman-Robertson funds, a three-to-one match, and
those dollars are used directly to put biologists, technicians,
researchers in the field to conduct needed restoration
projects, needed on-the-ground habitat management projects,
restoration projects, as well as development of access to
public lands, shooting range development, et cetera, all across
North America. It has been the direct result of the restoration
of elk, wild turkey, whitetail deer from nearly extirpated
numbers to numbers of whitetail deer now that exceed 30
million.
So, it has been the conservation success model that is
truly modeled around the world. And as a former game and fish
agency biologist, my salary was paid partially by Pittman-
Robertson funds. So, when a private landowner called, or when I
was managing public land, the resources that we used and the
habitat projects that we undertook were only possible through
Pittman-Robertson funds. It is the critical link to
conservation across North America.
So, to speak to the benefit of public access to ranges, No.
1, when you look at, really, the driver behind Pittman-
Robertson funds, 32 million recreational shooters provided 80
percent-plus of the Pittman-Robertson funds this last year. So,
again, $1.2 billion.
And the recreational shooter has a very direct impact in
wildlife conservation across North America. Thus, they deserve
to be a recipient of those funds, as well, from the sense of
building additional shooting ranges, and have access to clean,
appropriate, good, accessible ranges, but then also accomplish
a number of things from cleaning up lands and providing safe
access so then people are competent with firearms, and they are
ethical and skilled hunters when they go to the field.
Mrs. Peltola. I just appreciate the opportunity to put a
plug in for the many, many, many Americans who are responsible
gun owners, and who take gun ownership very seriously and the
safety of gun ownership, and the many good values and,
basically, the love we can share by sharing hunting, ethical
hunting and fishing, with our kids.
And you look at some of the tragedies that are occurring,
and those aren't hunters, those aren't kids that have grown up
with hunting and the good values that I think hunting and
hunting families provide. So, I just really like the
opportunity to give a plug for Second Amendment rights and good
values. Thank you.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you to the gentlewoman from Alaska.
Next, I would like to recognize one of the gentlemen from Utah,
Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you.
And, Mrs. Peltola, you have prompted me just to take a
minute of personal privilege. I used to build shooting ranges
for a good portion of my career, and I am looking forward to
being in Alaska this weekend. I think we actually share a
stage, and I am looking forward to getting to know you better
and being in your great state.
I would like to first address one of my bills, the PARC
Act, P-A-R-C Act. This bill is critical to protect access to
popular climbing, access, and wilderness areas on Federal
lands, creating a predictable standard for the rock-climbing
community, who has been using wilderness areas since their
inception and, if I might say so, are among our most
predictable caretakers of these wilderness areas, and who I
know care deeply about protecting them.
Additionally, I was proud to champion over 600,000 acres of
wilderness in Emery County. If areas like this retroactively
become blocked off from climbing access, it would be a
disincentive for any effort to do public lands legislation in
the future.
Mr. Winter, would you just take a moment to express the
importance of this bill, and why you would like to see this
bill move forward?
Mr. Winter. Yes. Thank you, Congressman Curtis.
On that historic note, I would just note in my home
district of Colorado, and I am very lucky to have Congressman
Neguse representing our interests there, climbers first
ascended the Diamond on Longs Peak in the early 1960s. It is
one of the most historic feats we celebrate in climbing in
America. And that area was designated as wilderness in 2009.
So, under the direction that the agencies are currently
going, climbers would have enjoyed historic access from the
1960s up until just recently, using fixed anchors to experience
that place. And we also, like you mentioned, have become
champions for taking care of those places.
And under the current direction of the land management
agencies, we could lose access to that place now that it has
been designated as wilderness in 2009 with this change in
policy. And, of course, that was never part of the conversation
when Governor Polis, who was at that time a Congressman,
sponsored the bill that designated that area as wilderness. And
we were champions for that bill, as well as we were for Emery
County.
So, I think it is incredibly important to recognize the
historic nature of climbing in wilderness areas, the access we
have enjoyed, and how that has allowed us to be unfettered
champions and caretakers for these wild places.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you. And thanks to you and all of our
witnesses for being here today.
Today, I would like to shift focus to the SHRED Act. I
thank my colleague Ms. Kuster, for her support of this bill.
The U.S. ski industry contributes an estimated $29 billion to
our GDP. If you haven't been skiing this year in Utah, it is
not too late. To all of you, I welcome you to the state.
This bill would allow the Forest Service to keep pace with
ski area permitting and forest treatment demands by allowing a
portion of the fees that resorts generate annually to be used
locally. Mr. Winter, I wonder if you could just comment on that
and the importance of the SHRED Act.
Ms. Link. Thank you.
Mr. Tiffany. Ms. Link.
Mr. Curtis. I am sorry.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Curtis. I am looking at Mr. Winter, and I have written
on my notes ``Ms. Link,'' so please excuse my mistake, Ms.
Link.
Ms. Link. And ``Winter'' would be a better name for the ski
industry, anyway.
Mr. Curtis. Correct.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Link. Anyway, so yes, this bill is absolutely crucial,
and the National Ski Areas Association has been behind this
bill for many years because of all of the benefits that it
would bring not only to ski areas, but also to the mountain
communities in which ski areas operate. So, everything from
permit administration to trail maintenance, there are a lot of
things that happen outside of ski area boundaries that would be
funded by this legislation, avalanche education and forecasting
as an example. There are many, many benefits to different
sectors of recreation from retaining these ski area permit
fees.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you. Thanks to all of our witnesses.
And Mr. Chairman, I yield my time.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Curtis.
Next, Ms. Leger Fernandez, you have 5 minutes.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much, Chair, and thank
you, Vice Chair, as well as the witnesses.
You know, I am from New Mexico, and we will compete with
everybody on regards to the beauty of our mountains and the
marvelousness of our skiing. I will say we don't have long
lines.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Leger Fernandez. So, you get a lot more skiing in on
that beautiful fluffy snow that we have. But my son did ski in
Utah for his spring break.
I did want to talk a bit about the outdoor recreation. I
appreciate the fact that we are focusing on that. New Mexico
relies significantly on its outdoor recreation, as does our
entire country. And the idea that we understand that these
lands are indeed our lands, and that we utilize them in a wise
and respectful way is so key.
We have a New Mexico True campaign, where we realize people
didn't know enough. They knew about our art, which is second to
only one other city. But they didn't know enough about our
outdoor recreation. So, we have spent some good amount of time
letting people know about that.
And skiing, I am a lover of skiing. I did not mess up the
shoulder on skiing. That was putting luggage into the flight,
since we go back and forth. But Ms. Link, in your testimony and
speaking, you said that the ski and snowboarding industry
supports 533,000 jobs. Can you describe a bit more about how
the SHRED Act, which I co-sponsored last cycle, and intend to
do the same this cycle, how would the SHRED Act help grow those
job opportunities?
Ms. Link. Thank you, and that is a great question. Ski
areas are major employers in rural communities, and ski area
projects and improvements, which would be facilitated by the
SHRED Act being passed, the funding obviously wouldn't go to
ski area improvements, but would support the Forest Service
decision-makers and their review process when they are
considering those kind of projects.
So, when we have growth at ski areas, and we have seen
record ski area visitation, especially last season, we would
like to reinvest a lot of that capital in improvements to
improve the ski area experience for the future. In doing that,
there are a lot of local benefits to ski area improvement
projects and construction projects. And if we can, for example,
have more snowmaking projects at ski areas, that snow-making
benefits the entire community. So, when a ski area is open, the
restaurants, the hotels, the gas station, everybody benefits
from that snowmaking.
So, all of those different aspects of ski area operations
would be supported through the SHRED Act passage.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right. And I think the issue that the
ski areas are not just places of outdoor recreation in the
winter, but also in the summer, which you pointed out, there
are the trails, the utilization of the lifts to get mountain
bikers up to the top, I think that that is a really key thing
that is not limited to only a single season.
The lack of bandwidth and the need across all of the
agencies for more support. Last Congress, we led efforts to
invest over a billion dollars for Federal permitting offices
through the Inflation Reduction Act, because we recognize that
we cannot move forward if we don't do that, and that we
preserve that.
As was mentioned earlier, H.R. 1 is going to be on the
Floor today. There are some ways in which that bill would
undermine our ability to continue funding positions which are a
bottleneck. I also have on the Floor today that we want to
encourage local hiring to H.R. 1, so that the Forest Service,
BLM, and the Park Service are looking to our local community
for their hiring.
And I will just ask quickly of our Federal witnesses, would
you say that that is really important, so that you have that
local perspective?
I only have 30 seconds, so whoever wants to chime in.
Mr. French. I think I am the only Federal witness, and the
answer is yes. Especially for the community links that we have,
the housing issues we have, it makes a lot of sense.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. OK, thank you. I look forward to
seeing these bills move forward so that we can continue to grow
our outdoor recreation.
Thank you, Chairman, for holding this hearing. I yield
back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for your questions. Next, I would
like to recognize another gentleman from Utah, Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore. And I will just quickly state for the record
that there have been two Utahns that have invited
Representative Neguse to come over to the greatest snow on
Earth, so I just want to keep that theme going as much as we
possibly can this year.
Mr. Mason, I am going to ask a couple more questions with
respect to the Range Access Act, but I would almost just want
to call out the intent for this is being captured. My colleague
from Utah has talked about it, and my new colleague from
Alaska, Mrs. Peltola, has also talked about it. And I could
actually just be sufficed just hearing your questioning and
your comments on this, and recognizing the ethical nature of
hunting, the ability to make sure people are properly trained,
and have the access that they need to do this responsibly. So,
I sincerely appreciate the comments that I am hearing from both
sides of the aisle today on this, and that is truly the intent
of this, and that is why Congressman Panetta and I came
together to advance this, and would truly hope for folks to see
the value in it, and come on board.
I will just give a brief story. The golden spike. So, in
addition to our greatest snow on Earth, we are also very proud
of the fact that Golden Spike, that last stake was driven in my
district. And I was out visiting some of the towns, the
heritage sites associated with that from the old rail line. And
when we got to one of these places, there was a sign that sort
of oriented folks to what this town used to be, and it had some
information, and it was ridden with bullet holes.
So, this is what we mean when we say irresponsible
targeting practice going on on our public lands. And the fault
of that is on the individuals that decided to do that, and I
condemn that. And I can't stand when I am out in our public
lands and I see that.
This is an opportunity to address this, recognizing that
there is a huge surge in this interest in getting out into the
great outdoors and the recreational aspect of this. That was
that moment that I was, like, this is why we are introducing
this bill. It was almost that same week that we were doing
something simultaneously. Having access to responsible ranges
in our BLM and Forest Service areas is designed to do this.
There is an enormous amount of support from all angles of
the recreational industry. And Mr. Mason, I will just quickly
ask, can you help add to the context that was even provided
earlier, on what do you think are some of the most important
benefits of having easier access to free public shooting
ranges?
Mr. Mason. No. 1 is the opportunity for the public to
engage the outdoors, to engage in opportunities that are
typically family-based or friendship-based, and it is the
opportunity to support conservation in a very broad sense, as
well. Again, recognizing that the recreational shooter
represents 80 percent of the funds generated for 80 percent-
plus of funds generated for Pittman-Robertson fund and, again,
the most widely celebrated and successful conservation model in
the world.
So, the opportunity to participate in that from a
recreational shooting standpoint, as well to increase and
improve proficiency, to be more skilled and ethical hunters.
There are a lot of bonds and relationships that are built in
the outdoors. If that is hiking, the same thing occurs on the
shooting range. Fellowship, friendship, time outdoors well
spent.
I am a father of a 14-year-old daughter, and it is time
that we spend together, and we cherish that time away from the
world, unplugged to enjoy the outdoors that way. And this would
increase and improve the ability to do that across much of the
Western United States.
Mr. Moore. Since 2020, have you seen an overcrowding issue?
And then, of course, if so, is this something that could
actually alleviate some of that overcrowding issue out on our
public lands?
Mr. Mason. I encounter overcrowding on a routine basis. The
ability to get outdoors, if you look at the BLM as an example,
managing 245 million acres, claiming 91 ranges, that is a range
per 2.7 million acres. For a context, that is the size of the
state of Delaware. So, that is not adequate opportunity for the
public to get outside, and participate, and increase and
improve firearm safety and proficiency.
Mr. Moore. Thank you. We have addressed some of the litter
issues and what we can do to clean that up. This is just an
all-encompassing opportunity for us to come together, and I
look forward to working with Committee leadership to advance
this effort.
So, thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you to the gentleman from Utah. Next, I
would like to recognize my neighbor, the Representative from
Minnesota, Mr. Stauber.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Mason, great to see you, and thank you for joining us
today. You know better than most how crucial Pittman-Robertson
is to our hunting traditions. Can you discuss the important
role that recreational shooters play in funding this program,
and how the expanded access to public land shooting ranges as a
result of the Firearm Access Act would help to boost Pittman-
Robertson?
Mr. Mason. Yes, sir. Thank you for that question. Again,
the unparalleled success of the Pittman-Robertson fund is what
state game and fish agencies absolutely rely on, from
activities such as land acquisition, to fighting endangered and
invasive species, to needed research. That may be repatriation
of bighorn sheep to a mountain range in which they have been
extirpated because of land use changes, whatever it might be.
It may be needed research on bobwhite quail, everything in
between, training of wildlife professionals.
So, the outdoor shooter, the recreational shooter, provides
by and large, 80-plus percent of the funds associated and
behind the Pittman-Robertson fund. So, when you look at 15.9
million licensed hunters, but you look at 32 million
recreational shooters, the ability of the recreational shooter
to have the ability to actively participate in ranges ethically
and safely, it is absolutely paramount for the continuation of
conservation North America as we know it.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you. And can you speak to conservation
projects funded by Pittman-Robertson from your time working for
the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department?
Mr. Mason. Absolutely, yes, sir. For conservation projects,
again, from purchasing needed acquisitions, maybe end holdings
to get public access to tens of thousands of acres in which
they didn't have reliable access, to projects that we did on
the ground; needed reclamation projects; wetland improvement
projects; projects that we did for research, for example, for
white winged dove, for mourning dove, for white tailed deer.
All of those projects were only possible because of the
enhanced funding that came as a force multiplier to states'
dollars through Pittman-Robertson.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
Deputy Chief French, thank you for joining us once again,
not even a week later. In our district, we love to grouse hunt
on our Federal lands. And last Congress, I introduced the
Healthy Forests for Hunters Act, which has the twofold benefit
of taking care of our Federal forests while creating good
habitat for grouse hunting. Can you speak broadly about how
properly-managed forests can improve wildlife habitat and
create new recreational opportunities for sportsmen and
sportswomen?
Mr. French. Thank you. You bet. So, to put it concisely,
you want to have healthy, resilient forests to support a wide
variety of wildlife habitats.
I am also a wildlife biologist. We were constantly looking
at what were the needs in any given forest area, whether it was
creating different age classes or openings that you may need to
provide the right distribution and variety of habitats needed
to support wildlife, and that often comes down to proper
management and broad management of those forests by forest
managers.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you.
And Mr. Chair, in closing, I don't have another question,
but I wanted to mention the importance of more, and not less,
access on our Federal lands. Last year, canoe permits were cut
by 13 percent in the Superior National Forest. I am still
frustrated by that decision, and I look forward to working with
you on this Subcommittee, and fixing that problem.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Would the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. Stauber. I would, yes.
Mr. Tiffany. So, the permits were cut by 13 percent on the
Superior National Forest. So, it isn't just these important
things that we do for our economic security, national security,
and job security like mining and things like that. They are
also cutting back on the recreational aspect of it, is that
right?
Mr. Stauber. That is right. The canoe permits were cut by
13 percent, and that was a decision by the Forest Service.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for your questioning.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. I would recognize myself for 5 minutes of
questioning.
First of all, I am really glad to hear the concern about
administrative rules, that there is concern about those rules
that are inconsistent with the laws that we have. I am really
glad that that has come up today, because it is a major problem
before us at this point as the leviathan of the Federal
Government really consumes people's lives.
The second thing that I would say is that I really
appreciate the investment locally and what is being proposed
there, I believe it is, with the SHRED Act. And I think we
should do that across the board with revenues that are
generated by activities on our Federal lands, including in this
next farm bill. I am sure hoping that we expand the Good
Neighbor Authority, which has been very successful. My state,
when I was in the State Legislature, very first state east of
the Mississippi that adopted that, and it has been quite
successful.
The third thing that I would say is that I think we have to
be very careful when we are doing these wilderness area
designations. We saw all kinds of them last session. People
view it as you are shutting down those areas, and I think you
are running into that problem right now, in regards to rock
climbing. And there is this preservationist mentality that
takes hold that says we can't allow anything. And, of course,
we see the litigation that goes along with it. And that is why
I think we need to be cautious when adding additional areas to
be designated as wilderness area that has nothing motorized
that can operate there, because we even see in the case of rock
climbing that sometimes it goes too far.
Mr. French, thank you for joining us again today. There
were a number of boat launches closed on the Chequamegon-
Nicolet National Forest a few years ago.
First of all, do you know if they have been reopened, and
what can we do to stop these, what is a recreational pursuit
using a boat launch, from being closed?
Mr. French. I am not familiar with those particular
closures, but I can certainly follow up with you.
Mr. Tiffany. I think we were told at that time, I was once
again in the State Legislature at that time, that there was not
sufficient funding. Does that sound like it would be a
rationale?
Mr. French. Yes. I mean, absolutely. So, I look at the
variety of bills here. We all agree on providing more access
and more infrastructure, like shooting ranges.
The problem I have as Deputy Chief is that the amount of
infrastructure that I have to maintain is close to $1 billion a
year, and I have a budget that is maybe 25 percent of that.
Every piece of infrastructure that we build, we have to create
long-term maintenance of it. And if I can make those two meet,
I want to say yes to everything.
Mr. Tiffany. If a state wanted to take on that burden,
would you consider that?
Mr. French. I think through a Good Neighbor agreement or
opportunities like how states use Pittman-Robertson funds, yes.
Mr. Tiffany. Last week, we talked about catastrophic
wildfires burning, on average, about 7 million acres annually.
Can you discuss the effects these wildfires and lack of proper
forest management have on recreation opportunities?
Mr. French. On recreation? Well, you can clearly see in the
West that areas that, whether it is a ski area that got
completely burned over near Lake Tahoe, or it is trail systems
or campgrounds, we have lost critical infrastructure from the
huge fires we have had in the last 15 years. And we are not
keeping up with replacing it.
Plus, it just changes the experience. I mean, you look at,
like, the Plumas National Forest, where almost half that forest
completely burned over. Those trails that you used to hike on
or camp in used to be shaded. Now they are just wide open black
landscapes.
Mr. Tiffany. So, it restricts public access for recreation
when we see these massive wildfires due to improper management?
Mr. French. Fires will certainly change access, and they
block access when they are occurring.
Mr. Tiffany. We talked about the ability to use fire
retardant last week when you were here before us. Not being
able to use that fire retardant, how is that going to affect
recreational access on our Federal lands?
Mr. French. If we lose the ability to use retardant, that
is a critical tool that we lose.
I mean, I could think of multiple examples where we have
used fire retardant to pre-treat areas that help us to evacuate
communities and recreation facilities. I think the Mosquito
Fire in 2020 was a good example of where we were using both
ground crews and aerial-applied retardant on hillsides to
create safe egress routes for when those areas eventually
burned. So, we would lose a critical tool.
Mr. Tiffany. One final question, real quickly, Mr. Mason.
Do you expect that, if we see ranges proposed on some of these
Federal lands, do you expect to see lawsuits trying to stop
them?
Mr. Mason. I don't know that I could speculate to that,
sir, but I do think it could be a joint partnership. It was
just mentioned, the opportunity for, if it is BLM or the Forest
Service, to work with their states and conservation partners to
ensure the opportunity to safely participate in the out-of-
doors.
Mr. Tiffany. OK. So, I want to thank all the witnesses for
joining us today. I think that completes our questioning here,
and I really appreciate your testimony, and we would like to
impanel our third panel at this time, if you will.
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 first panel, I will allow all witnesses to
testify before Member questioning.
I ask unanimous consent the following letter from the
Outdoor Recreation Roundtable in support of the bills on
today's hearing, which will ultimately form a larger recreation
package, be added to the record for today's hearing.
The Outdoor Recreation Roundtable represents 48 outdoor
recreation trade associations, businesses, and state offices of
outdoor recreation. The letter states in part, ``The
bipartisan, bicameral legislative package would truly transform
the way Americans access and enjoy their public lands and
waters by streamlining permitting processes to ease burdens on
outfitters and guides; improving access to recreational
opportunities; ensuring access to green spaces in under-served
communities; developing, improving, and completing long-range
trails; investing in rural communities; and so much more.''
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Outdoor Recreation Roundtable Association
March 27, 2023
Hon. Tom Tiffany, Chairman
Hon. Joe Neguse, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse:
The Outdoor Recreation Roundtable Association--on behalf of the 48
outdoor recreation trade associations, businesses, and state Offices of
Outdoor Recreation we represent--writes to thank you for your upcoming
hearing on components of an outdoor recreation legislative package.
This historic legislation would revolutionize the $862 billion outdoor
recreation economy and pave the way for its continued growth.
This bipartisan, bicameral legislative package would truly
transform the way Americans access and enjoy their public lands and
waters by streamlining permitting processes to ease burdens on
outfitters and guides; improving access to recreational opportunities;
ensuring access to green spaces in underserved communities; developing,
improving, and completing long-range trails; investing in rural
communities; and so much more. All of this would be accomplished at no
additional cost to the taxpayer. And this bill is well-timed: the U.S.
Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that the outdoor recreation
economy grew three times faster than the U.S. economy from 2020 to
2021.
We strongly support advancing this comprehensive piece of
legislation that appropriately meets the growing demand for access to
the outdoors while also protecting public lands and waters for future
use. Most bills that are the focus of this hearing have been worked on
by policymakers--including those on this Committee--and stakeholders
for years. The strong support from the industry and conservation
community, as well as both sides of the political aisle, highlight the
importance of this bill. The members of the outdoor recreation economy
look forward to working with you and your staffs on this package that
could be a win-win for businesses, conservation, rural communities, and
the economy.
Sincerely,
Chris Perkins,
Senior Director
______
Mr. Tiffany. I would like to now introduce Mr. Mike
Reynolds, who is the Deputy Director for External and
Congressional Affairs at the National Park Service.
Deputy Director Reynolds, you are now recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF MIKE REYNOLDS, DEPUTY CHIEF DIRECTOR FOR
CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS AND EXTERNAL RELATIONS, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Reynolds. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, and Ranking
Member Neguse, and currently Congresswoman Peltola, thank you
and members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present
the Department of the Interior's views on five of the bills
today on your agenda. I would like to submit our full statement
for the record and summarize the Department's views.
In addition, the Bureau of Land Management has submitted a
statement for the record on a sixth bill, H.R. 1614, the Range
Access Act. The Bureau would be happy to respond in writing to
any questions on that bill.
H.R. 1319 the Biking on Long Distance Trails, or BOLT Act,
would require the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture
to identify existing long-distance bike trails, as well as
areas that could present an opportunity to develop or complete
long-distance bike trails.
The Department supports the goals of establishing
additional opportunities for bicycling on Federal lands. We
would welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsor and the
Committee to achieve additional clarity on some of the bill's
provisions.
H.R. 1380, the Protecting America's Rock Climbing, or PARC
Act, would require the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior
to issue guidance on climbing management in wilderness areas
under the Secretary's jurisdiction.
I must first clarify that existing Department of the
Interior guidance allows climbing, and provides for the
placement of fixed anchors in designated wilderness in
accordance with the Wilderness Act, and the Department has no
intention of changing that. It is unclear whether H.R. 1380, as
drafted, achieves the goal of supporting recreational climbing,
and may actually have the opposite effect of imposing more
significant administrative burdens and unnecessarily
lengthening the permitting process.
Furthermore, mandating particular uses in designated
wilderness, as H.R. 1380 would do, has the practical effect of
amending the Wilderness Act, which is not only unnecessary, but
could potentially have some serious, harmful consequences.
Additionally, just yesterday, the National Park Service
noticed tribal consultation on a nationwide climbing policy.
Legislating the types of requirements contemplated under H.R.
1380 before tribes have had a chance to weigh in with NPS would
be premature.
So, for these reasons, the Department opposes H.R. 1380,
but would welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsor and
the Committee on ways to further promote recreational climbing.
On H.R. 1527, the Simplifying Outdoor Access to Recreation,
or SOAR Act, would authorize single joint special recreation
permits for multi-jurisdictional trips across Federal lands,
and makes various amendments to the Federal Land Recreation
Enhancement Act, FLREA, aimed at improving the process and
reducing the cost of applying for and administering special
recreation permits.
The Department supports the efforts to improve the
permitting process for trips that cross jurisdictional
boundaries, and would like to continue to work with the
sponsors and the Committee on certain modifications of the
bill.
H.R. 1576, the Federal Interior Land Media, or FILM, Act
would provide exemptions from permitting and fee requirements
for content creation, including still photography, video, audio
recording activities conducted on land under the jurisdiction
of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the
Interior.
This issue is currently pending litigation, but the
Department would like to work with the Committee and bill's
sponsor on this issue once litigation is concluded to consider
legislative or other approaches to balance the interests and
rights of those engaged in filming, photography, and audio
recording with the government's interest in protecting lands
and resources.
H.R. 1642, the Law Enforcement Officer and Firefighter
Recreation Pass Act, would amend the Federal Lands Recreation
Enhancement Act to provide for an annual national recreation
pass free of charge for law enforcement officers and
firefighters.
The Department supports the intent of the bill to honor the
service of our law enforcement officers and firefighters. But
we would note that, if passed, H.R. 1642 would result in
reductions in the funding that would otherwise be available for
maintaining these federally managed parks and recreation sites.
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, Congresswoman
Peltola, thank you again for the opportunity to appear for you
today. I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reynolds follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael T. Reynolds, Deputy Director,
Congressional and External Relations, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior
on H.R. 930, H.R. 1380, H.R. 1667, H.R. 1642, H.R. 1319, H.R. 1614,
H.R. 1576, and H.R. 1527
Public Land Recreation Bills
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of the
Department of the Interior on H.R. 1319, Biking On Long Distance Trails
(BOLT) Act, H.R. 1380, Protecting America's Rock Climbing (PARC) Act,
H.R. 1527, Simplifying Outdoor Access To Recreation (SOAR) Act, H.R.
1576, Federal Interior Land Media (FILM) Act, and H.R. 1642, Law
Enforcement Officer and Firefighter Recreation Pass Act.
H.R. 1319 requires the identification of long-distance bike trails
on Federal lands. H.R. 1380 would require the Secretary of Agriculture
and the Secretary of the Interior to issue guidance on climbing
management in designated wilderness areas. H.R. 1527 aims to improve
the process and reduce the cost of applying for and administering
Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) and authorizes single joint SRPs for
multi-jurisdictional trips across Federal lands. H.R. 1576 would
provide exceptions from permitting and fee requirements for content
creation, regardless of distribution platform, including digital or
analog video and digital or analog audio recording activities,
conducted on land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior. Finally, H.R. 1642, Law
Enforcement Officer and Firefighter Recreation Pass Act, would amend
the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to provide for an annual
National Recreational Pass for law enforcement officers and
firefighters.
We defer to the Department of Agriculture regarding provisions
affecting the management of lands administered by the U.S. Forest
Service (Forest Service).
Background
Federal land management agencies oversee approximately 640 million
surface acres. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for
approximately 245 million of those acres while the Forest Service
manages another 193 million. Most other Federal land is managed by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), with over 92 million acres, and
the National Park Service (NPS), with approximately 80 million acres.
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the Army Corps of Engineers
also manage Federal lands used for recreation.
The Department of the Interior's (Department) bureaus contribute to
its overall recreation mission and to the Secretary's recreation and
equitable access priorities. The National Park System, which preserves
some of our nation's most important national treasures, hosts over 300
million visitors every year. The public lands managed by the BLM host a
remarkable variety of recreational activities, and BLM lands supported
more than 73 million recreational visits last year--an increase of
three million from 2019. The National Wildlife Refuge System provides
world-renowned places to see iconic wildlife and partake in a variety
of outdoor activities, such as hiking, bird-watching, canoeing and
hunting. The water projects of Reclamation, which is the largest
wholesale water supplier in the nation, are among America's most
popular sites for water-based outdoor recreation.
The Federal Lands Recreation and Enhancement Act (FLREA) authorizes
the following four Interior Department bureaus to collect fees on
Federal lands and waters: the BLM, Reclamation, FWS, and NPS. FLREA
also provides the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture
authority to collect recreation fees. Revenues collected under FLREA
allow the Federal government to implement projects that benefit
visitors, such as improving accessibility, maintaining recreation
sites, and building informational exhibits. FLREA also authorizes
agencies to issue SRPs, which include authorizations for commercial,
competitive event, and group recreation uses of the public lands and
waters. These permits are issued to manage visitor use, protect
recreational and natural resources, and provide for the health and
safety of visitors.
The BLM administers approximately 4,700 SRPs per year. Other
Interior bureaus use different authorities in addition to FLREA to
manage recreation and collect associated fees: the FWS issues special
use permits; Reclamation issues use authorizations; and NPS issues
commercial use authorizations (CUAs) and special use permits.
H.R. 1319, Biking On Long Distance Trails (BOLT) Act
H.R. 1319 would require the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary
of Agriculture to identify no less than 10 existing long-distance bike
trails and 10 areas presenting an opportunity to develop or complete
long-distance bike trails. The long-distance trails would cross no less
than 80 miles of lands managed by the Department of the Interior and
the Forest Service to provide opportunities for mountain biking, road
biking, touring, and gravel biking. H.R. 1319 directs the long-distance
trails to be consistent with the management requirements of the Federal
lands crossed and requires coordination with stakeholders to evaluate
resources and feasibility. Further, Federal agencies may publish maps,
install signage, and issue promotional materials for any identified
long-distance bike trails under the bill. Lastly, H.R. 1319 requires
the Secretaries, in partnership with interested organizations, to
prepare and publish a report listing the trails within two years.
The Department supports the goals of establishing additional
opportunities for bicycling on Federal lands. The diverse lands managed
by the various bureaus of the Department provide tremendous
opportunities for cycling. The BLM, for example, has a long-standing
partnership with external organizations to provide information, GPS
trail maps, and interactive virtual tours for mountain biking on public
lands, and promotes the ``Top 20 Mountain Biking Opportunities'' on
BLM-managed lands.
We would also welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsor and
the Committee on some of the bill's provisions. For example, we would
like clarification regarding each Secretary's responsibilities toward
achieving the number of identified areas conducive to long-distance
bike trails and opportunities for developing trails. Additionally, the
Department notes that some of the best opportunities for developing
long-distance bike trail routes could likely traverse non-Federal
lands, and we would like to work with the sponsor to allow for the
inclusion of non-Federal land segments in the trails. We would also
like to ensure sufficient time and resources are provided in the bill
for consultation with Tribal Nations, as appropriate, stakeholder
outreach, coordination of public input on the feasibility of the
trails, completing environmental analyses and any changes to local land
use plans--as well as for managing and maintaining the trails upon
their establishment. Finally, the Department would like to discuss
further with the sponsor how to best define the intended use of these
trail segments, including how uses such as electric bicycles would
affect that use and the management of other uses, such as hiking, or
off-highway vehicles, as appropriate.
H.R. 1380, Protecting America's Rock Climbing (PARC) Act
Recreational climbing is a legitimate and appropriate recreational
activity that is growing in popularity on lands administered by the
Department, including in designated wilderness areas. Promoting
recreational climbing and ensuring public participation in the
development of climbing policies are goals the Department shares and
fully supports. Currently, Departmental guidance allows climbing and
provides for the placement of fixed anchors in designated wilderness in
accordance with the Wilderness Act, and the Department has no intention
to change that.
It is unclear whether H.R. 1380, as drafted, achieves the goal of
supporting recreational climbing and may actually have the opposite
effect of imposing more significant administrative burdens and
unnecessarily lengthening the permitting process. The Department is
concerned that H.R. 1380, as drafted, may be interpreted to require
public notice and comment for every action the Department undertakes,
including the placement and replacement of individual fixed anchors in
addition to actions necessary to fulfill its broader mandate to
administer the designated wilderness under its jurisdiction and
preserve wilderness character while allowing recreation where
appropriate in accordance with the Wilderness Act. Departmental policy
already requires public notice and comment for climbing management
plans in wilderness areas. The Department remains committed to ensuring
that tribal consultation and an appropriate level of public review and
participation occur in management planning and policy development
processes and decisions related to climbing.
Furthermore, mandating particular uses in designated wilderness, as
H.R. 1380 would do, has the practical effect of amending the Wilderness
Act, which is not only unnecessary but could potentially have serious
deleterious consequences. The Department feels it has sufficient
authorities under the Wilderness Act to fully support recreational
climbing opportunities in designated wilderness opportunities in a
manner that balances tribal, recreational, environmental, and
wilderness preservation values and interests and therefore does not
believe legislation is necessary.
For these reasons, the Department opposes H.R. 1380. The Department
welcomes the opportunity to work with the sponsor and the Committee on
ways to further promote recreation climbing.
H.R. 1527, Simplifying Outdoor Access to Recreation (SOAR) Act
H.R. 1527 authorizes single joint SRPs for multi-jurisdictional
trips across Federal lands and makes various amendments to FLREA aimed
at improving the process and reducing the cost of applying for and
administering SRPs.
Single Joint SRPs for Multi-Jurisdictional Trips
Section 106 of H.R. 1527 authorizes agencies to issue single joint
SRPs for trips crossing jurisdictional boundaries of more than one
Federal land managing agency. When a single joint SRP for a multi-
jurisdictional trip is proposed, the bill authorizes each of the land
management agencies to identify a lead agency for the SRP. This
designation is determined by the relative length of the portions of the
proposed trip, the land use designations of the areas to be accessed
during the trip, the relative ability of each agency to properly
administer the single joint SRP, and any other considerations. Under
the bill, the agencies would not be permitted to recover the costs of
this coordination. H.R. 1527 also authorizes agencies to delegate their
respective enforcement authorities to the designated lead agency.
The Department supports efforts to improve the permitting process
for trips that cross jurisdictional boundaries and would like to
continue to work with the sponsors on certain modifications. For
example, the Department supports delegating enforcement authorities
among agencies, but would like to ensure these delegations conform with
the statutory authorities for each agency. In addition, the Department
would like some clarity on how an environmental analysis would be
handled by the identified lead agency to ensure compliance with
standards for other agencies. Specifically, the Department is concerned
that the use of categorical exclusions authorized by the lead agency
and applied to a single joint SRP for a multi-jurisdictional trip could
result in conflicts with another agency's established National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes.
Although the Department appreciates the bill's option for agencies
to withdraw from single joint SRPs, the Department feels the
requirements to issue substantially similar permits with no new
application may cause processing issues and other limitations that
could impact the timeliness of the permitting process. If an agency
needs to withdraw from a single joint SRP, presumably it is because the
agency needs to issue a permit under terms different from the single
joint SRP, whether due to differing management concerns or other
circumstances. The Department would like to continue to work with the
sponsors to address opportunities to improve permitting efficiency that
minimize the potential for conflicts involving divergent regulatory
mandates and to determine appropriate cost recovery options.
Alignment of Permitting Authorities & Fees
Section 102 of H.R. 1527 defines each land management agency's
recreation permitting instruments as SRPs under FLREA and lays out a
formula for the fees associated with SRPs, including alternative fees.
NPS is excluded from these fee-setting provisions in the bill; however,
the Department is concerned that these provisions, coupled with the
limited cost-recovery provided in the bill, would severely limit the
NPS's ability to fund the program.
The Department generally supports expanding FLREA to coordinate
recreation permitting across agencies. However, the Department believes
the bill, as currently written, could create conflicts with existing
statutory authorities. For example, the NPS issues CUAs (to which parts
of the bill apply) under the authority of the National Park Service
Concessions Management Improvement Act of 1998, not under FLREA. The
Department would like to continue to work with the sponsors and
Subcommittee on modifications to these provisions.
Expedited Permitting
H.R. 1527 provides authority for agencies to improve recreation
permitting processes. This includes the expanded use of categorical
exclusions, programmatic NEPA, and expedited rulemaking. The bill also
directs agencies to make online permit applications available. The
Department supports these efforts as we continue to pursue
opportunities to facilitate increased recreational access for all
Americans, especially underserved communities. The BLM has already
taken significant steps to develop online access to recreation
information and permits, most recently through its launch of the pilot
Recreation and Permit Tracking Online Reporting (RAPTOR) system. RAPTOR
allows users to apply for and renew SRPs online. The BLM is fully
deploying RAPTOR for the issuance of SRPs in 40 field offices in 2023
and has already issued 68 permits through the system to date. The BLM
is targeting to have RAPTOR in use at all field offices by the end of
calendar year 2025.
H.R. 1527 authorizes permittees to voluntarily return unused
service days to be available for other permittees. The bill also
authorizes the use of temporary SRPs and conversion of temporary
permits to long-term permits. In addition, the bill includes provisions
directing agencies to establish a permit administration protocol to
automatically authorize permittees to engage in activities
substantially similar to those for which they have a permit. The
Department supports efforts to simplify the permitting process for
applicants.
Permit Notifications
Section 105 of H.R. 1527 requires agencies to make notifications of
permit opportunities available online. The Department supports these
efforts and would welcome the opportunity to work further with the
sponsors and the Subcommittee on necessary modifications to these
provisions. For example, the Department is concerned that providing
notification of all potential recreation permit opportunities could
result in a speculative market for the most profitable ones.
Additionally, recreation activities are generally proposed by the
public, and bureaus then determine whether they require permits under
Federal land management laws and regulations.
Liability & Cost Recovery
Section 108 of H.R. 1527 determines the terms under which agencies
require permittees to waive the liability of the United States for
permitted recreation activities. Section 109 also requires agencies to
amend the cost recovery process for issuing and renewing SRPs. This
section would exempt the first 50 hours of work from cost recovery in
issuing and monitoring these permits, which is particularly problematic
for the NPS, as under current authorities, NPS can recover the full
costs of these activities. Under the bill, the exemption would be
applied to multiple permit applications for similar services in the
same area. The agencies would be required to determine the share of the
aggregate amount to be allocated to each application on an equal or
prorated basis. While the Department supports the goal of simplifying
processes when they are overly burdensome, we would like to continue to
work with the sponsors and the Subcommittee to determine appropriate
cost recovery options for the agencies. For example, limiting full cost
recovery on larger, more complex applications could unintentionally
prevent the effective administration of all SRPs.
H.R. 1576, Federal Interior Land Media (FILM) Act
H.R. 1576 would provide exceptions from permitting and fee
requirements for content creation, regardless of distribution platform,
including still photography, digital or analog video, and digital or
analog audio recording activities, conducted on land under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the
Interior.
In pending litigation, a filmmaker argues that aspects of the
existing commercial filming statute for the NPS violate the First
Amendment. A federal district court ruled in his favor, but last year
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed
that ruling. His petition for writ of certiorari is pending before the
U.S. Supreme Court, Price v. Garland, No. 22-665. Judicial resolution
of this pending litigation will inform whether and how Congress may
choose to legislate in this area.
The Department would like to work with the Committee and bill
sponsor on this issue once the litigation is concluded to consider
legislative or other approaches to balance the interests and rights of
those engaged in filming, photography, and audio recording activities
with the government's interest in protecting lands and resources.
H.R. 1642, Law Enforcement Officer and Firefighter Recreation Pass Act
Law Enforcement Officers and Firefighters make tremendous
sacrifices and contributions to this country every day. We have the
utmost respect for their work because we see it first-hand: Federal
recreational land agencies employ and work side-by-side with law
enforcement officers and firefighters. The Department supports the
intent of the bill to honor the service of our law enforcement officers
and firefighters.
If passed, H.R. 1642 would result in a reduction to available
funding that would otherwise be available for maintaining these
federally managed parks and recreational sites. It would hamper efforts
to maintain operational capacity in the National Park System that,
since FY 2011, has seen over 30 new units and additional authorized
sites added, and visitation increase by more than 30 million. Ensuring
that Federal lands continue to play a vital role in American life and
culture requires that we maintain and repair visitor facilities and
enhance visitor services and opportunities. Recreation fee revenues are
an important source of funding that enhances our efforts to address the
deferred maintenance backlog at our National Parks, better manage other
Federal lands, and respond quickly to changes in visitation levels and
service requirements.
We highlight that almost a quarter of all Americans (58 to 79
million) are eligible for a free or low-cost Annual or Lifetime America
the Beautiful--National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass.
Additionally, the NPS and other participating agencies have made
available several fee-free days for all visitors, including law
enforcement officers and firefighters.
We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues with the
bill sponsor and the Committee.
Chairman Tiffany, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may
have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Mike Reynolds, Deputy
Director, Congressional and External Relations, National Park Service
Mr. Reynolds did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
Question 1. This Committee has heard from people across this
country about the closure of amenities on land managed by the
Department of the Interior (DOI).
1a) For all DOI managed federal lands, please provide the number of
closures since 2000 for campsites, campgrounds, and day use areas.
Please provide the number of closures of miles of trails, roads, and
routes that served a recreational purpose, such as horseback riding,
hiking, and motorized vehicle activities, since 2000 across DOI managed
federal lands.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you very much, Deputy Director Reynolds.
I would like to introduce Mr. Aaron Bannon, Executive
Director of the American Outdoors Association.
Mr. Bannon, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF AARON BANNON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICA OUTDOORS
ASSOCIATION, KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE
Mr. Bannon. Chairman Tiffany, members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify here in support of
H.R. 1527, the Simplifying Outdoor Access for Recreation Act.
As one of many bills under consideration today, the SOAR
Act, co-sponsored by Congressman Curtis and by Congressman
Neguse, is going to be great for our industry.
As the Executive Director of America Outdoors, I strive to
help our members, from whitewater guides and canoe liveries to
mountaineering and outdoor education programs, sustain and grow
their operations. Outdoor recreation companies have to manage a
lot in their day-to-day: training guides, managing inventory
and gear, mitigating the inherent risks of the activity,
marketing their business, maintaining their bus fleets, and
significantly sustaining access to the landscape they operate
on.
Whether it is a river, a mountain, a forest, or an ocean,
facilitated recreation providers are completely dependent upon
their ability to access their destination, typically through a
permit granted by the Federal Land and Water Management Agency.
Much of these businesses' value proposition, regardless of
their assets, is tied up in the integrity of their special
recreation permits.
The vast majority of special recreation permits on public
land are overseen by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of
Land Management. Other agencies like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, and in certain aspects the
National Park Service, also use the special recreation permit
authority to grant access for facilitated outdoor recreation
programs on landscapes in which they operate. For all, the
permitting authority made permanent in the SOAR Act is a vital
tool.
The SOAR Act takes a close look at the special recreation
permitting program, streamlines much of the permitting
processes that have made the prospect of approving an
operator's request to do something new or different so
challenging, so resource and so time intensive for permit
administrators that many permit administrators who want nothing
more than to expand recreational offerings in a reasonable
manner in the areas they oversee, are stymied by the many steps
required to process applications. And that could make the
prospect a complete non-starter.
Consider the permit acquisition process. In order to
approve a special use permit application, a permit
administrator has to first consult their land management plan,
determine if an activity is considered in that land management
plan, and if not, consider a plan amendment process. This could
be a full-blown environmental impact statement that may take 3
to 10 years and that may cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
If an activity is considered to be in a land management plan on
the National Forest Service, and a project-level environmental
review is determined to be completed, that is an environmental
analysis. That may take less than a year, but it could cost
somewhere between $25,000 and $100,000.
So, if an administrator is able to assemble a team to
conduct the environmental analysis and consider the permit, and
this is a big if, then the applicant is expected to cover the
cost of this analysis with no guarantee of approval. For an
outfitter running a less than $500,000 a year annual operation,
which makes up 80 percent of America Outdoors operators, making
a $100,000 bet on a process to grow is just not a good business
decision.
The Forest Service just announced in a proposed rule an
intent to remove the 50-hour relief from cost recovery, which
did not charge applicants for this process unless it took more
than 50 hours. They also announced in this proposed rule a plan
to more than double the cost of processing operations. So, when
we were talking about $25,000 to $100,000 that you would pay as
an operator for a process, the prospect is to more than double
that. And this proposed rule is live right now.
Unlike the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land
Management does not tend to require applicants to pay cost
recovery and conduct an extensive environmental review process.
Similarly, unlike the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park
Service is required to fully cover all of its expenditures from
the visiting public. There is an expectation in most cases that
when you are visiting a National Park Service, you are going to
pay an access fee.
But if you are a private individual, or you are part of a
private group, and you head out into the vast majority of BLM
or U.S. Forest Service lands, you don't expect to pay a fee.
You just go, and you expect the agency responsible to maintain
the infrastructure for your recreation experience: the roads,
the culverts, the trails, the campgrounds, the signage, law
enforcement, footbridges, boat ramps, corrals, parking lots,
the list goes on, with funds based on what is appropriated from
this body and what can be retained through fees.
Permitted operators, therefore, who pay a percentage of
gross revenues retained through site fees in many cases become
the predominant revenue stream for a Forest Service's entire
recreation program, typically, in fact, representing a minor
percentage of the overall use, and contributing outsized
revenues.
I know I am over. If I could just conclude, please.
Mr. Tiffany. You can wrap it up, please.
Mr. Bannon. Thank you. As a new or returning visitor to
public lands, outfitters and guides, outdoor education facility
recreation providers serve as early and accessible entry points
and provide critical expertise, resources, and local knowledge
for a particular outdoor experience. Whether renting kayaks,
guiding horse packing trips, renting climbing camps, providing
vectors or otherwise, they are bringing America's people to the
public lands, and memories, and invigorating, authentic
recreational experiences.
We strive to provide these when affordable and accessible.
So, let's get together, let's pass the SOAR ACT. Let's help
agencies like the Forest Service get out of their own way in
facilitating more opportunities for guided recreation, and
let's celebrate it together in one of the great world-class
landscapes in some of your home states.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bannon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Aaron Bannon, Executive Director, America
Outdoors Association
on H.R. 1527, the Simplifying Outdoor Access for Recreation (SOAR) Act
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 1527,
the Simplifying Outdoor Access for Recreation (SOAR) Act. America
Outdoors Association (AOA) is proud to continue supporting the SOAR Act
as the 118th Congress takes it under consideration. We appreciate the
swift conviction of this body to move this bill forward quickly. This
bill enjoys broad support from numerous outdoor programs, associations,
and organizations and has historically accumulated numerous democratic
and republican co-sponsors in both the House and Senate. Outfitters
need the provisions of this bill in place more than ever and appreciate
the Federal Lands Subcommittee's effort. AOA hopes that the SOAR Act
can move forward in its original inclusive and broad spirit, which
passed this Committee by unanimous consent in both the 116th and 117th
Congress.
The SOAR Act is designed to provide better opportunities for
nonprofit and for-profit programs alike, including those focused on
underserved communities, outdoor education programing, wilderness
therapy, and traditional outfitting and guiding. In this testimony
America Outdoors will call attention to a few provisions in particular,
identify the challenges these provisions have been designed to address,
and consider how they work together to improve the permitting paradigm
for operators on public lands.
Specifically, by implementing the provisions designed to improve
the permitting process (Sec. 103), to encourage permit flexibility
(Sec. 104), and to provide cost recovery relief (Sec. 109), much can be
done to at once streamline the application and approval process and
reduce the fiscal burden imposed on the applicant.
Sec. 103. Permitting Process Improvements
Categorical exclusions, one of the few tools available to agency
personnel seeking a swift and straightforward environmental review to
consider a proposed activity, are limited in their applicability to
outfitter and guide permitting. While the Forest Service has
contemplated some categorical exclusions to streamline reissuance of an
existing permit, more can be done. Section 103 directs agencies to do
just that. Across affected agencies, the secretary concerned is
directed to evaluate the permitting process and ``identify
opportunities to eliminate duplicative processes, to reduce costs, and
to decrease processing times, including evaluating whether categorical
exclusions would ``reduce processing times and cost.'' For example,
extending the existing categorical exclusion for one-year temporary
permits to a two-year authorization will give the agency flexibility to
authorize and evaluate new uses.
The costs are excessive to both the agency and the applicant. By
specifically reviewing the permitting system with a mind toward
reducing costs and redundant processes, agencies will be compelled to
consider the impacts of their processes from the perspective of the
operator. Operators are frequently burdened by overly complex
processes, and inefficient systems to drive up costs.
The SOAR Act seeks to address one of these duplicative processes
directly: the Needs Assessment. According to this bill, ``the Secretary
concerned shall not conduct a needs assessment as a condition of
issuing a special recreation permit for a Federal land unit under this
act,'' except as provided for in the Wilderness Act. The Forest Service
likes to use a Needs Assessment, whether within designated Wilderness
or beyond Wilderness boundaries, to ascertain the perceived need for
allowance of an activity. Need, however, is a term given specific
weight within the Wilderness Act. Commercial activities may only be
permitted in Wilderness to the extent that they are necessary to
fulfill the recreational purposes of the Act.
No such restriction exists outside of designated wilderness, but
the process is used nonetheless. Conducting a Needs Assessment for non-
wilderness areas is just one example of an undertaking that is
duplicative, costly, and process-intensive, which serves only to
increase the administrative backlog at a site and further delay the
processing of permit applications. Eliminating needs assessments where
they are not necessary is a great example of how agencies may liberate
themselves to focus on the processes that will actually help connect
more people with the outdoors: processing special recreation permit
applications.
When the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee considered
this Permitting Process improvements provision, they took it one step
further, directing the Secretary concerned to ``utilize available
tools, including tiering to existing programmatic reviews, as
appropriate, to facilitate an effective and efficient environmental
review process for activities undertaken by the Secretary concerned
relating to the issuance of special recreation permits.'' (America's
Outdoor Recreation Act of 2023, Sec. 321(b)(1)). America Outdoors
Association approves of this provision and recommends its inclusion in
the SOAR Act. Programmatic reviews take the cost burden out of the
hands of an individual operator or class of operators by considering an
activity, or a set of activities, rather than a site-specific activity.
Section 104. Permit Flexibility
Two provisions in Section 104, Permit Flexibility, provide critical
tools to make temporary permits more usable and to allow substantially
similar uses to be approved while sidestepping cumbersome processes.
Significant obstacles stand in the way of a permit administrator's
ability to consider an applied-for use to be permitted. On Forest
Service lands, once the initial screening process is complete, the
application process begins. The application process may include an
environmental analysis on the part of the agency, which can consume
significant time and resources. The office may not even have the team
in place to conduct an environmental analysis, in which case a permit
application cannot be processed. And in many cases districts have found
themselves unable to process permits and consider new or additional
uses.
Temporary Special Recreation Permits, which may be issued ``for new
or additional recreational uses'' of Forest Service and BLM lands, can
help ease this process paralysis. The Forest Service in particular has
a history of using temporary permits to fill the role when resource
impacts will be minimal, and the use is relatively minor. Temporary
permits have been used more expansively in the past, and this provision
encourages agencies to expand their use of these types of permits.
For Special Recreation Permit holders who are interested in
providing a new experience that is ``comparable in type, nature, scope,
and ecological setting'' to an activity that is already authorized
under the permit, the provision regarding ``Similar Activities'' (Sec.
104(a)) is supportive. This provision directs the Secretary concerned
to establish a protocol that authorizes permittees ``to engage in
recreational activity that is substantially similar to the specific
activity authorized.'' Currently, a resource manager may think that a
substantially similar activity still requires extensive environmental
review. This perceived barrier can compel a permit administrator to not
allow the activity as part of an existing permit. In one instance, an
outfitter renting canoes and kayaks was told that NEPA analysis would
be required to also rent stand-up-paddleboards.
Section 109. Cost Recovery Reform
The SOAR Act provision regarding cost recovery reform eases a cost
burden that is significant for outfitters, but insignificant for
agencies. Currently, when an existing or potential permittee would like
to apply for a new activity or an expansion of an existing activity,
the agency must conduct an environmental review of the request. If the
review takes more than 50 agency hours to complete, the entire cost of
the process is charged to the applicant, regardless of the outcome. If
the agency concludes, therefore, that the request should not be
approved as a result of the environmental review, the applicant is
still expected to pay. This is an unreasonable burden to place on a
business. Illogically, if the Environment Review exceeds 50 hours, then
there is not credit for the first 50 hours and the included time spent
on the analysis back to the first hour.
The SOAR Act would reduce this burden somewhat for outfitters by
not charging them for the first 50 hours, which is only significant for
relatively minimal environmental reviews. For significant environmental
reviews requiring hundreds of hours, agencies could still seek to
require the applicant to cover the vast majority of the cost through
the cost recovery process. Already, agencies do not rely on cost
recovery as a consistent source of income. Agency personnel are more
likely to deny the request outright or recommend that the applicant pay
a third-party contractor, as the agencies do not have the resources to
conduct the necessary environmental review. Agencies will not lose
significant revenue due to the changes in this section, but
opportunities to expand outdoor recreation opportunities will increase
significantly. The Bureau of Land Management uses cost recovery for
major events, like Burning Man, but has figured out how to authorize
most outfitting and guiding activities without incurring cost recovery.
Section 302. Enhancing Outdoor Recreation through Public Lands Service
Organizations
While the thrust of Section 302 is sound, to promote projects that
provide additional recreation opportunities, this provision needs to be
carefully worded so as not to put traditional outfitters at a
competitive disadvantage. AOA recommends that the scope of ``projects''
as encompassed by section 302 of the Act, for which the agencies would
be required to use youth or conservation corps or non-profit wilderness
and trails stewardship organizations ``to the maximum extent
practicable,'' be more carefully defined. As currently drafted, this
section would apply to any project on Federal recreational lands and
waters ``that would directly or indirectly enhance recreation.'' The
scope of projects that could ``directly or indirectly enhance
recreation'' is exceedingly broad. As just one example, a hydroelectric
project could include features that could provide additional recreation
opportunities. Depending upon how it is interpreted, it could also have
implications for permitting of outfitting and guiding and other
recreational services. AOA strongly urges that this section be amended
and specifically limited to ``stewardship projects.''
Conclusion
As new and returning visitors explore their public lands,
outfitters and guides serve as early and accessible entry points who
provide critical expertise, resources, and local knowledge for a
particular outdoor experience. Whether renting kayaks, guiding
horsepacking trips, running climbing camps, providing bike tours, or
otherwise helping the public enjoy the myriad outdoor recreation
opportunities available across the nation, outfitters are making things
happen. America's outfitting and guiding industry offer the public
lasting memories and invigorating, authentic outdoor recreation
experiences.
Outfitters strive to keep the experiences they provide affordable
and accessible. They face challenges, however, which the legislation
being considered today can alleviate.
______
Mr. Tiffany. OK. Thank you, Mr. Bannon.
Next, I would like to recognize Representative McClintock
to do our next introduction. And I am anxious to hear the
pronunciation of this gentleman's last name.
Mr. McClintock. Well, Mr. Chairman, if you ever watch the
Sheriffs of El Dorado County, Sheriff D'Agostini needs no
introduction.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McClintock. His leadership was the inspiration for that
series that ran between 2014 and 2019. He served as El Dorado
County Sheriff for 12 years, until his retirement earlier this
year.
Throughout his career, he served in practically every
capacity in law enforcement. He was the moving force behind
construction of the new public safety headquarters in
Placerville. H.R. 1642 was actually first proposed by the
Sheriff and his wife, Janine. And it is great to have him here
today.
Mr. Tiffany. You are recognized.
STATEMENT OF JOHN D'AGOSTINI, RETIRED SHERIFF, CORONER, PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATOR, EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Mr. D'Agostini. Thank you very much. Chairman, honorable
members of this Committee, I am honored to be here to testify
today in support of Congressman McClintock's bill, H.R. 1642.
My name is John D'Agostini, and I am the recently-retired
Sheriff, Coroner, and Public Administrator for the County of El
Dorado in California. In 2010, I was elected to that seat and
served three terms, retiring just December 30 of this last
year. Prior to that, I served as an investigator for the Amador
County District Attorney's Office for 8 years, and prior to
that for the Amador County Sheriff's Office for 10 years.
As sheriff, I was responsible for the safety and security
of the entire unincorporated area of El Dorado County, 392
full-time employees and over 400 volunteers. I administered
during catastrophic wildfires, floods, civil unrest, homicides,
child abuse, rapes, and every other issue our nation's peace
officers deal with. Also during my administration, I led my
agency through a line of duty death, and also through the
tragedy of the loss of one of our own taking their own life.
When I first became sheriff, I instituted a vision
statement. It directs the service style to this day. That
vision statement is simple: a modern approach to traditional
law enforcement values; total enforcement on crime and
criminals; total care for victims, witnesses, and the
community; and total professionalism through training and by
example.
Another novel idea brought to the El Dorado County
Sheriff's Office upon my arrival was a support group led by my
wife, Janine. See, growing up in law enforcement there were
numerous resources and programs available to me through my
employer that provided mental and physical health services.
However, there were no such services available to my family.
Obviously, the families behind the officers are that officer's
bedrock for mental health and well-being. That organization
thrived with 10-35, 10-35 being the 10 code for backup,
provided support and services for the families of those that
served so that those that serve have the support and backup at
home they need to mentally survive their career in law
enforcement.
Other organizations such as How to Love Our Cops, Wounded
Blue, and Warriors Rest also help our law enforcement officers
and their families thrive throughout their career. This brings
me to the purpose of this bill.
Of the many challenges that I overcame in my career, more
specifically as sheriff, the challenge of leading and serving
subordinates, recruiting and retaining quality staff have been
some of the most daunting. It is no surprise that the last few
decades have been challenging for law enforcement as it relates
to public perception and acceptance.
It is also no revelation that the job of the American peace
officer has become more challenging, especially in the last
decade. Whether it is dealing with civil unrest, bad apples in
the ranks and the resulting distrust, et cetera, the job of
providing equal justice within and under the law has become
increasingly demanding, both physically and mentally.
It was my wife who first presented the idea of this bill,
providing some national benefit to our nation's law enforcement
officers. It in no way is intended to reduce the appreciation
we have for our nation's armed forces. It was just an idea to
let our officers know that we support them, too. While our
armed forces protect our national security and interests
abroad, our law enforcement officers do the same within our
nation's boundaries. The idea was presented to our Congressman,
the Honorable Congressman McClintock. And after discussing the
idea with our local veterans groups, he also saw the value in
the idea.
While I am sitting here before you as a retired peace
officer, we can't forget our brother-and-sister first
responders, our nation's firefighters. They also stand at the
front lines not for peacekeeping, but for safe keeping. Many
times in my career they were side by side with me through
horrendous situations, whether wildfires, floods, terrible
traffic collisions with multiple casualties, airplane crashes,
violent crime scenes, et cetera. They are our brothers in red,
and face similar nightmares and daydreams as our peace
officers.
By providing an incentive for our peace officers and
firefighters such as the benefit this bill provides, it not
only shows them that our leaders value them, but it will
incentivize them to get out into our gorgeous and historical
national parks and Federal lands. I know that my time spent in
these places helped me during my career to appreciate our
nation's beauty and history, and in turn reduce stress and help
serve my communities in a more even-keeled and calm manner.
Incentivizing our nation's peace officers and firefighters to
also visit these areas and spend valued time with their
families will do the same.
This bill is important and appropriate at this time, given
the temperature of our nation's posture toward law enforcement
and firefighters. It serves a valuable purpose, recognizing and
incentivizing a valuable population in our society. I humbly
ask that this bill is supported. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. D'Agostini follows:]
Prepared Statement of John D'Agostini, El Dorado County Sheriff,
Coroner, Public Administrator--Retired
on H.R. 1642, ``Law Enforcement Officer and Firefighter Recreation Pass
Act''
My name is John D'Agostini and I am the recently retired, duly
elected, Sheriff--Coroner--Public Administrator for the County of El
Dorado in California. El Dorado County was one of the original 18
counties when California became a state in 1850 and is comprised of
more than 1,700 square miles. It spans from Sacramento County on the
West to the Nevada State line on the East. Beautiful South Lake Tahoe,
including Emerald Bay, is in El Dorado County.
I am a forth generation resident of the county with my Great
Grandparents settling in the Southern portion of the county in 1924. I
was born and raised on the same ranch they settled back then. After
attending local schools, I began my first career in the construction
industry, eventually gaining my general building contractor's license
and built many homes in the area.
In 1993, with three young daughters and a passion for community, I
began my law enforcement career as a Deputy Sheriff for the Amador
County Sheriff's Office. Amador County is the county directly south of
El Dorado County. I was provided opportunities to work in various law
enforcement fields including Patrol, Investigations and Narcotics
Investigations. I was on the SWAT Team, was a firearms instructor, a
Rangemaster and Armorer. In 1999 I promoted to Sergeant and after a
short stint back on patrol, I supervised the Narcotics Unit until 2003.
In 2003 I transferred to the Amador County District Attorney's
Office as an Investigator and was tasked with investigating general
crimes encompassing everything from bad checks to homicides. In 2007 I
was recruited, due to my experience in narcotics investigations, into a
newly formed California State Narcotics Task Force and helped set
policy and procedures for the ongoing success of that unit.
Also in 2003, while continuing my law enforcement career, I
campaigned for and was elected to the Pioneer Union School District
Board of Trustees. I was reelected in 2007 and served in that capacity
until 2011.
In 2010, I was elected El Dorado County Sheriff--Coroner--Public
Administrator and served three terms, retiring December 30th of this
past year.
As Sheriff, I was responsible for safety and security of the entire
unincorporated area of El Dorado County, 392 full time employees and
over 400 volunteers. I administered during fires, floods, civil unrest,
homicides, child abuse cases, rapes, and every other issue our nations
peace officers deal with. Also, during my administration, I led my
agency through a line of duty death and also through the tragedy of one
of our own taking their own life.
When I first became Sheriff, I instituted a ``Vision Statement'' in
the agency that directs the service style and level to this day. ``A
Modern Approach to Traditional Law Enforcement Values . . . Total
Enforcement on Crime and Criminals . . . Total Care for Victims,
Witnesses and the Community . . . Total Professionalisme through
Training and by Example.
Another simple but novel idea brought to the El Dorado County
Sheriff's Office upon my arrival was a support group lead by my wife,
Janine. Growing up in Law Enforcement, there were resources available
to me through my employer that provided mental and physical health
services however there were no such services available to the families
of Peace Officers. Obviously, the families behind the Officer are that
Officer's bedrock for mental health and wellbeing. That organization,
Thrive with 10-35, 10-35 being the code for backup, provides support
and services for the families of those that serve so that those that
serve have the support and backup at home they need to mentally survive
their career in law enforcement.
Other organizations such as ``How to Love our Cops'' and ``Wounded
Blue'' also help our law enforcement officers and their families thrive
throughout their career.
Throughout my life and career, I have learned the simple and what
could be ``cliche'd'' as ``Common Sense'' that the ``Golden Rule'' is
the Rule that governs nearly everything in our society and allows us to
govern ourselves in our free society. This simple and obvious fact
brings me to the purpose of this Bill.
Of the many challenges I have overcome in my career and more
specifically, as Sheriff, the challenge of providing for, holding
accountable and serving subordinates and recruiting and retaining
quality staff have been some of the most daunting. It is no surprise
that the last few decades have been challenging for Law Enforcement as
it relates to public perception and acceptance. It is also no
revelation that the job of the American Peace Office has become more
challenging, especially in the last decade. Weather it is dealing with
civil unrest, bad apples in the ranks, the resulting distrust, etc, the
job of providing equal justice within and under the law has become
increasingly demanding both physically and mentally.
When my wife first presented the idea of this bill, providing some
national benefit to our nations law enforcement officers, it was in no
way to reduce the appreciation and awe we have for our nations armed
forces. It was just an idea to help let our officers know that we
support them too. While our armed forces protect our national security
and interests abroad, our law enforcement officers do the same within
our nation's boundaries. The idea was presented to our Congressman, the
Honorable Congressman McClintock. After discussing the idea with our
local Veterans groups, Congressman McClintock saw the value in such an
idea as well.
While I am sitting before you as a retired Peace Officer, we can't
forget our brother and sister first responders, our nations
Firefighters. They also stand at the front lines, not for peace keeping
but rather for safe keeping. Many times in my career, they were side by
side with me though horrendous situations. Weather wildfires, floods,
terrible traffic collisions with multiple casualties, airplane crashes,
violent crime scenes, etc. They are our ``Brothers in Red'' and face
similar nightmares and daydreams as our peace officers.
By providing an incentive for our peace officers and firefighters
such as the one this bill provides, not only shows them that our
leaders, you, value them, but it will incentivize them to get out into
our gorgeous and historical National Parks and Federal Lands. This will
help with their mindset and mental wellness.
My wife Janine and I very much enjoy our time together visiting our
National Parks and Federal Lands. While we haven't had the opportunity
to visit many thus far in our lives, we plan on visiting many more in
the future. Our times in Yellowstone, Petrified Forest, White Sands,
Carlsbad Caverns, the Grand Canyon and Yosemite are some of the most
valued times together we have had. I have also had the Opportunity to
visit Zion, Great Basin, North Cascade and Bryce.
I know that my time spent in these places helped me during my
career to appreciate our Nation's beauty and history and in turn reduce
stress and help serve my communities in a more even keeled and calm
manner. Incentivizing our nations Peace Officers and Firefighters to
also visit these areas will do the same.
This bill is important and appropriate at this time given the
temperature of our nations gratitude for Law Enforcement and
Firefighters. It serves a valuable purpose recognizing and
incentivizing a valuable population in our culture. I encourage you to
support this Bill.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you very much, Mr. D'Agostini, and thank
you for your service.
Next, I would like to introduce Mr. Fred Ferguson, Vice
President of Public Affairs of Vista Outdoor, and Chairman of
Vista Outdoor Foundation.
Mr. Ferguson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF FRED FERGUSON, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS,
VISTA OUTDOOR, AND CHAIRMAN, VISTA OUTDOOR FOUNDATION, ANOKA,
MINNESOTA
Mr. Ferguson. Thank you and good morning, Chairman Tiffany,
Ranking Member Peltola, and members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Fred Ferguson, and I serve as Vice President of Public
Affairs and Communications for Vista Outdoor, and as Member
Representative of the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable. I am
grateful for the chance to voice support for the bipartisan
bills under consideration today.
Vista Outdoor is a leading manufacturer and designer of
outdoor recreation gear. We are headquartered in Anoka,
Minnesota, and employ more than 6,000 people across 16 states
and Puerto Rico. We serve our consumers through a portfolio of
41 iconic brands, which include CamelBak, Simms Fishing, Fox
Racing, QuietKat e-bikes, Bushnell, Federal, and many, many
more.
We are a mission-driven company founded on the belief that
when we do well, we can do good. This means we actively
advocate for policies that expand recreational opportunities,
and support organizations whose missions bring more people
outside. The outdoors and, more specifically, our Federal lands
and waters are for all Americans, and we believe that more
people and kids should experience the wonders of being in the
wild.
This mindset drives our business actions. We have invested
more than $1 billion acquiring new outdoor companies. The Vista
Outdoor Foundation has funded over a dozen organizations
focused on conservation and expanding youth access to the
outdoors. We are one of the largest contributors to
conservation through the Pittman-Robertson Act, with more than
$500 million since our founding.
Much of our business success, combined with bipartisan
outdoor policy wins led by this Subcommittee, has contributed
to the growth of the outdoor recreation economy. The latest
Bureau of Economic Analysis Research shows that the outdoor
recreation economy represents $862 billion in gross output, 4.5
million jobs, and 1.9 percent of GDP. From 2020 to 2021, the
outdoor recreation economy grew three times faster than the
overall U.S. economy, as Americans flocked outdoors during the
pandemic. This translates to job creation, economic
development, diversification for our rural communities in and
around Federal lands and waters.
Despite outdoor recreation's run of successes, the industry
is not immune to the larger macroeconomic conditions. Rampant
inflation and rising interest rates are harming consumers who
must make the choice to buy groceries or plan an adventure.
Long-term trends provided by the Outdoor Foundation show
declines in core participation and outdoor outings. National
park visitation shows that, even during the post-pandemic boom,
overall visitation to our parks remains below 2019 levels and
off of 2016 highs. And outdoor recreation companies have been
harmed by Federal trade policies, including the lapse of the
generalized system of preferences and inconsistent 301 tariff
policy.
The current climate and long-term outlook make today's
bipartisan hearing essential, and we urge the Subcommittee to
move with speed and conviction to enact these bills.
More specifically, we support the FILM Act. We need to
recruit and activate the next generation of outdoor recreation
champions, and the FILM Act will help us reach and inspire
these future visitors, leaders, and those champions that we
need.
We support the SOAR Act. This legislation fundamentally
improves the way people access and experience the outdoors, and
we thank the bipartisan leaders who have gotten us to this
point.
We support the BOLT Act. Long-distance bike trails are one
of the fastest-growing segments of gravel riding, and this bill
will attract more users to our Federal lands.
We support the Range Access Act. Recreational shooting and
hunting have grown in popularity, as participants have become
more diverse and more active. Expanding range infrastructure
will promote safety, minimize dispersed target shooting, and
support wildlife conservation funding, as target shooting is
the leading contributor to the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Trust
Fund.
We support the SHRED Act, legislation that would enable
greater investments at U.S. Forest Service permitted ski areas.
And as a proud supporter of the Veterans and Parks Act law,
which was championed by this Subcommittee, we are equally
supportive of the Law Enforcement Officer and Firefighter
Recreation Pass Act, and we look forward to this bill becoming
law.
Again, on behalf of Vista Outdoor and the many stakeholders
of the $862 billion outdoor recreation industry, thank you for
the opportunity to testify, and for the Subcommittee's focus on
enacting an outdoor recreation package this Congress.
I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ferguson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Fred C. Ferguson, Vice President, Public Affairs
and
Communications, Vista Outdoor; and Member, Outdoor Recreation
Roundtable
Good morning Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse and members of
the Subcommittee. My name is Fred Ferguson and I serve as Vice
President of Public Affairs and Communications for Vista Outdoor and
member-representative of the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable. I am
grateful for the chance to voice support for the bipartisan bills under
consideration today.
Vista Outdoor (NYSE: VSTO) is a leading manufacturer and designer
of outdoor recreation gear. We are headquartered in Anoka, Minnesota,
and employ more than 6,000 people across 16 states and Puerto Rico. We
serve our consumers through a portfolio of 41 iconic brands, which
include CamelBak, Simms Fishing, Fox Racing, QuietKat e-bikes, Bushnell
and Federal.
We are a mission-driven company founded on the belief that when we
do well, we can do good. This means we actively advocate for policies
that expand recreational opportunities and directly fund organizations
whose missions bring more people outside. The outdoors--and more
specifically our federal lands and waters--are for all Americans and we
believe that more people should experience the wonders of being in the
wild.
This mindset drives our business actions: we've invested more than
$1 billion acquiring new outdoor companies. The Vista Outdoor
Foundation has funded over a dozen outdoor organizations on the front
lines of expanding access and conservation. We are one of the largest
contributors to conservation through the Pittman-Robertson Act, with
over $500 million since our founding.
Much of our business success--combined with bipartisan outdoor
policy wins led by this Committee--has contributed to the growth of the
outdoor recreation economy. The latest Bureau of Economic Analysis
research shows that the outdoor recreation economy represents 1.9% of
GDP, 4.5 million jobs and $862 billion in gross output. From 2020 to
2021, the outdoor recreation economy grew three times faster than the
U.S. economy as a whole as Americans flocked outdoors during the
pandemic. This translates into rural job creation and economic
development and diversification for communities in and around federal
lands and waters.
We appreciate the Subcommittee for holding today's hearing. Despite
outdoor recreation's run of successes, the industry is not immune to
the larger macroeconomic conditions we face today. Rampant inflation
and rising interest rates are harming consumers who may not have the
option to buy groceries or plan an adventure.
Long-term trends provided by the Outdoor Foundation also show
declines in ``core'' participation and outdoor outings.\1\ National
Park visitation shows that even during the post-pandemic boost, overall
visitation to our parks remains below 2019 levels and off 2016
highs.\2\ And outdoor recreation companies have been harmed by federal
trade policies, including the lapse of the Generalized System of
Preferences (GSP) and inconsistent 301 tariff policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.bicycleretailer.com/announcements/2022/09/22/
outdoor-participation-grows-record-levels#.ZB2qky-B1MA
\2\ https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/visitation-numbers.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vista Outdoor and the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable support each of
the bills under consideration today. The current climate and long-term
outlook make today's bipartisan hearing essential, and we urge the
Subcommittee to move with speed and conviction to enact these bills.
More specifically, we support the FILM Act. We need to recruit and
activate the next generation of outdoor recreation champions, and The
FILM Act will help us reach and inspire these future visitors, leaders
and champions.
We support the SOAR Act. This legislation fundamentally improves
the way people access and experience the outdoors--and we thank the
bipartisan leaders who have gotten us to this point. We appreciate the
bill's intent to create parity within permitting, and we want to ensure
that includes guided bike trips. The new normal for guided bike trips
includes a mix of traditional and e-bike users--and final SOAR Act
language should ensure that traditional bikes and e-bikes operate under
a single permit where e-bikes are allowed on public lands.
We support the BOLT Act. Long-distance bike trails are one of the
fastest growing segments of gravel riding, and this bill will attract
more users to their federal lands.
We support the Range Access Act. Recreational shooting and hunting
have grown in popularity as shooting sports participants have become
more diverse and active. Expanding range infrastructure will promote
safety, minimize dispersed target shooting and support wildlife
conservation funding, as target shooting is the leading contributor to
the Pittman-Robertson trust fund.
Vista Outdoor supports the SHRED Act, legislation that would enable
greater investments at U.S. Forest Service permitted ski areas.
Vista Outdoor is a proud supporter of the Veterans in Parks Act
law, which was championed by this Subcommittee. We are equally
supportive of the Law Enforcement Officer and Firefighter Recreation
Pass Act and look forward to it becoming law.
Again, on behalf of Vista Outdoor and the many stakeholders of the
$862 billion outdoor recreation industry, thank you for the opportunity
to testify and for the Subcommittee's focus on enacting an outdoor
recreation package this Congress.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Ferguson. Next, we have Mr.
Todd Keller, Director of Government Affairs for the
International Mountain Biking Association.
Mr. Keller, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TODD KELLER, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS,
INTERNATIONAL MOUNTAIN BICYCLING ASSOCIATION, BOULDER, COLORADO
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member
Neguse, and members of the Subcommittee on Public Lands for the
opportunity to testify today.
My name is Todd Keller. I serve as the Director of
Government Affairs for the International Mountain Bicycling
Association, commonly referred to as IMBA. I am here today to
testify in support of H.R. 1319, the Biking on Long-Distance
Trails, or BOLT Act.
IMBA creates, enhances, and protects great places to ride
mountain bikes. We are focused on growing quantity and quality
of mountain biking trail communities, so everyone has close-to-
home access and rides iconic backcountry experiences. Since
1988, IMBA has been the worldwide leader in mountain bike
advocacy, focused entirely on trails and access for mountain
bikers in all parts of the United States through a network of
229 IMBA local member organizations, including 40,000
individual members. IMBA teaches and encourages low-impact
riding, grassroots advocacy, sustainable trail design,
innovative land management practices, and cooperation amongst
trail user groups. IMBA is a national network of local groups,
individual riders, and passionate volunteers working together
for the benefit of the entire community.
The BOLT Act is a top legislative priority for our
community, as it continues the investment in outdoor
recreation, recognizing the importance of long-distance trails
to create backcountry discovery, while supporting small rural
communities. The legislation will require the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to: (1) identify
no less than 10 existing long-distance bike trails on Federal
lands in excess of 80 miles in distance; (2) identify 10 areas
where opportunities exist to develop or complete long-distance
bike trails on Federal lands in excess of 80 miles in distance;
(3) coordinate with stakeholders on the feasibility of
completing long-distance trails and the resources necessary for
such projects; and (4) publish maps, signage, and promotional
materials highlighting the positive aspects of long-distance
trails and networks; and finally, issue a report with input
from stakeholders outlining the details of existing and
proposed long-distance trails and their promotion.
There are a number of trails that will benefit from this
long-distance trails recognition, such as the Ouachita National
Recreation Trail in Arkansas; the Colorado Trail in Colorado;
the Maah Daah Hey Trail in North Dakota; the Continental Divide
Trail running through various states, including New Mexico; and
the Bonneville Shoreline Trail in Utah--are all mountain bike,
multi-use trails that will benefit from the BOLT Act.
Long-distance bike trails have brought economic benefits to
communities across the country, and the BOLT Act will further
help bolster that economy.
The recent pandemic makes clear that access to public lands
is essential for the health and well-being of Americans. IMBA
believes that this is proven by the increase in cycling seen
during this period. Trail access legislation is an important
step forward in utilizing existing bike trails for greater
purpose and value to the public.
The BOLT Act also takes tangible steps toward identifying
future trails that could be designated and developed in under-
served areas of our country. Biking in all of its forms has
numerous physical, mental, and social benefits. The BOLT Act is
a common-sense, bipartisan way to increase pedal power and
wellness through access to public lands.
IMBA appreciates the Committee's role in outdoor recreation
across the United States and its important work on the BOLT
Act. We stand ready to assist the Committee to ensure passage
of this bill into law, and find additional opportunities to
increase outdoor recreation to benefit our members and
Americans nationwide.
Thank you for allowing me to testify before you today, and
I am happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Todd Keller, Director of Government Affairs,
International Mountain Bicycling Association
on H.R. 1319, Biking on Long-Distance Trails (BOLT) Act
On behalf of the International Mountain Bicycling Association
(IMBA), which partners with over 200 local organizations and nearly
200,000 individual supporters, we appreciate the Subcommittee's
meaningful work with regards to the importance of outdoor recreation
and conservation. Specifically, IMBA strongly supports H.R. 1319, the
Biking on Long-Distance Trails (BOLT) Act, which will improve access to
quality outdoor recreation trail opportunities on public lands across
America.
The International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) creates,
enhances and protects great places to ride mountain bikes. It is
focused on creating more trails close to home to grow the quantity and
quality of mountain bike trail communities across the U.S., so everyone
has access to close-to-home rides and iconic backcountry experiences.
Since 1988, IMBA has been the worldwide leader in mountain bike
advocacy and the only organization focused entirely on trails and
access for all types of mountain bikers in all parts of the U.S. IMBA
teaches and encourages low-impact riding, grassroots advocacy,
sustainable trail design, innovative land management practices and
cooperation among trail user groups. IMBA U.S. is a national network of
local groups, individual riders and passionate volunteers working
together for the benefit of the entire community.
The Biking on Long-Distance Trails (BOLT) Act is a top legislative
priority for our community as it continues the investment in outdoor
recreation by recognizing the importance of long distance trails to
create iconic backcountry discovery while supporting small rural
communities. The legislation will require the Secretary of Agriculture
and the Secretary of Interior to:
Identify no less than 10 existing long-distance bike
trails on Federal lands in excess of 80 miles in distance;
Identify 10 areas where opportunity exists to develop or
complete long-distance bike trails on federal lands in
excess of 80 miles in distance;
Coordinate with stakeholders on feasibility of completing
long distance trails and the resources necessary for such
projects;
Publish maps, signage, and promotional materials
highlighting the positive aspects of the long-distance
trail network;
Issue a report, with input from stakeholders, outlining
the details of existing and proposed long-distance trails
and their promotion.
There are a number of trails that will benefit from this long-
distance trails recognition, such as the Ouachita National Recreation
Trail in Arkansas, the High Country Pathway in Michigan, Maah Daah Hey
trail in North Dakota, the Great Divide Mountain Bike Trail running
from the Canada to Mexico border, and the Bonneville Shoreline Trail in
Utah are all mountain bike trails that will benefit from the BOLT Act.
Long-distance bike trails have brought incredible economic benefits to
communities across the country, and the BOLT Act will help further
bolster the economy.
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis the recreation economy
accounted for $454 billion in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is an
increase of $107 billion over 2020. Headwater Economics projects that
these numbers present a significantly higher value than some of the
traditional economic drivers such as motor vehicle manufacturing; oil,
gas, and coal; air transportation; and the performing arts.
The recent pandemic makes clear that access to public lands is
essential for the health and well-being of Americans. IMBA strongly
believes that this is proven by the increase in cycling seen during the
pandemic, which has held beyond the pandemic.This trail access
legislation is an important step forward in utilizing existing bike
trails for a greater purpose and value to the public. The BOLT Act also
takes tangible steps toward identifying future trails that could be
designated and developed in underserved areas of the country. Biking,
in all of its forms, has numerous physical, mental, and social
benefits.The BOLT Act is a commonsense, bipartisan way to increase
pedal-power and wellness through concerted access to public lands
trails.
IMBA appreciates the Committee's role in outdoor recreation across
the United States and its important work on the BOLT Act. We stand
ready to assist the Committee to ensure passage of this important bill
into law and find any additional opportunities to increase outdoor
recreation to benefit our members and Americans nationwide. Thank you
for allowing us to testify before you today.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you very much, Mr. Keller. Next, we are
going to move on to questioning.
Representative McClintock, you are up first if you want to
take 5 minutes.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Sheriff D'Agostini, you and Janine proposed this
legislation during the virulent anti-police agitation that we
saw in 2020. What struck me about it is that it sends a
tangible message to public safety officers across the country
that the vast, vast majority of the American people stand
behind them, and appreciate them, and honor their work. We
depend upon them not only for our safety, we depend upon them
for the rule of law itself. Without law enforcement, there is
no law. And without law, there is no civilization, and people
of cities like Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, and
New York are now learning that truth again the hard way.
Could you expand on the importance of local law
enforcement, and the impact that Black Lives Matter, Antifa,
and the defund the police movements are having on law
enforcement morale, and the implications of this agitation?
Mr. D'Agostini. So, the obvious that we are hearing
everywhere in our industry is recruitment and retention. Right
after the civil unrest issues in 2020, we saw a mass exodus.
Retirements were at an all-time high, and a huge loss in
applications to our industry. My office, where we like to run
the industry standard of 5 to 7 percent vacancy rate, we were
up to 19 and 20 percent. And it is worse in more urban areas.
It is starting to change a little bit right now because of
what you just mentioned. It is well known, and polls show that
the vast majority of the population supports law enforcement.
We know that. However, when you are working the street, and you
don't have that support from the people in your community, it
becomes tough to do the job. It becomes tough to survive the
job, and it becomes tough to go home to a family and tell them
why you still do a job in such an environment.
I believe that the tide is turning. I believe that we will
get back to where we were. But those organizations that defile
law enforcement, do not like law enforcement, don't like the
rule of law, they have a heck of an impact on our industry. And
we saw that this last half a decade. We saw what happens to our
agencies across this nation when that type of mindset sets in.
Mr. McClintock. I know you were a little frustrated getting
your remarks into 5 minutes. Was there anything you wanted to
add to your testimony?
Mr. D'Agostini. I am sorry, Congressman?
Mr. McClintock. Was there anything you would like to add to
your testimony? I know you were a little frustrated about the
time limitations.
Mr. D'Agostini. No, no, no. That is fine. I appreciate it.
I am just honored to be here. I believe that it is time to
start--any tool that we can use right now to recognize law
enforcement and our firefighters, to help turn that around in
this country for our rule of law and our way of society, they
being a necessity to keep us all safe.
Mr. McClintock. And we thank you for bringing the bill to
me. Thank you for your service. Thank you for being here today.
And I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative McClintock. Next, I
would like to recognize the Representative from Alaska, Mrs.
Peltola.
Mrs. Peltola. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just following on
the last remarks, Mr. D'Agostini, I really appreciate that you
and your wife have put this idea forward. I think it is
laudable.
In Alaska, we don't have nearly enough law enforcement. So,
that movement that was just referred to is not something we
broadly identify with, because so many of our communities don't
even have a village public safety officer, and they are not
even armed. They just have billy clubs. So, we really
appreciate your work.
My husband is a former law enforcement person. He was what
we call a brownshirt, a wildlife officer. And he thinks it is
important just to even wave hello. You know, in a small town
sometimes people don't wave at you. And even those small
courtesies, I think, are appreciated. But I really appreciate
your work.
My question, however, is for Mr. Reynolds. Across the
world, we are seeing real variations in our seasons. And in
terms of hunting, it is almost like you can throw the calendar
out because moose are rutting 4 weeks late, salmon are showing
up 2 or 3 weeks late, the different stocks. And I wonder how
you are incorporating the variable weather into recreational
planning and the permits and your seasons.
Mr. Reynolds. Yes, thank you very much for that question.
The changes that we are seeing, especially in your state, in
Alaska, that seems to be more compounded, there are a lot of
funding coming in through the Inflation Reduction Act and some
other aspects to make us more resilient, to look at our
ecosystems, to look at our park management.
When it comes to recreation, we are trying to figure out
how we could be more flexible. So, some of these tools that we
are even talking about today with one permitted, kind of things
under the SOAR Act, these are all positive steps to try to make
sure we could maybe change out from year to year, if the
changes coming out with different schedules of somebody using
or accessing areas.
And then we need to try to think broadly about
alternatives, if something is to be closed or some storm damage
has occurred.
So, those are some of the initial things we are looking at
in our climate assessments.
Mrs. Peltola. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for your questioning, Mrs. Peltola.
The gentleman from Utah is back for another panel.
Mr. Curtis, you have 5 minutes.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our
witnesses for being here. I would like to highlight two bills.
The SOAR Act, and it has been mentioned just a little bit
today. The bill reduces the complexity and the cost of using
and recreating on our Federal lands. And I don't think there is
a better example than Utah of how these Federal lands can be
used responsibly, how it helps the economy of the state, it
helps the well-being of the state. There are so many benefits
that comes from responsible use of our public lands.
Yet, when we unnecessarily throttle the ability to use
these public lands, it forces people sometimes to use them
without permits, and to use them irresponsibly. And I think the
SOAR Act takes a good swing at the appropriate access without
too much work for people. And particularly our guides and
things, who are very, very responsible, public lands belong to
the people, and these cumbersome and expensive regulations are
problematic.
Mr. Bannon, can you comment on that? You are nodding your
head, and you want to chime in with me on that?
Mr. Bannon. Absolutely, and thank you very much,
Congressman Curtis, for sponsoring this bill and for asking me
this question.
I absolutely agree. And as you think about the challenges
that an access area faces, and the resources that they are
trying to acquire from an outfitter to build a boat ramp, to
sustain any kind of additional infrastructure, that money is
going to come from the fees that are paid on an annual basis
from that operator. So, if those fees are insufficient or
otherwise, there are insufficient resources to sustain that
recreation infrastructure, it is not just bad for our
operation, it is bad for everybody who is trying to get out
there.
So, on one hand, we want to make sure that our fees are
being spent in the right places, but we want to make sure that
agencies are well resourced to provide for the broader
recreating public.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you.
Let's talk about biking, Mr. Keller. I think you alluded to
the Bonneville Shoreline Trail Act. And I just know in my
district how beloved these trails are, how much they facilitate
people getting outside, using the great outdoors responsibly,
and having a good experience. If we are successful, that
Bonneville Shoreline Trail will eventually span thousands of
miles across our state, top to bottom.
You talked about a beautiful amenity, plus the ability for
people to have healthy, wholesome recreation. Could you just
comment yourself on why this issue is important, and why these
trails are an important part of our communities?
Mr. Keller. Yes, of course. And thank you for sponsoring
the BOLT Act, and then your work with us on the Bonneville
Shoreline Trail Advancement Act last year. We appreciate that.
Cycling, we have seen cycling grow, as I alluded in my
comments. It has grown exponentially over the pandemic. You
couldn't find a bicycle in bike shops. They were back-ordered,
and the secondary market went crazy. We have retained many of
those people, as they have realized that cycling in all forms
are a great way to stay not only physically healthy, but
mentally healthy.
We have also seen trails as a backbone, as a cornerstone,
essentially, of our outdoor recreation infrastructure, and that
just builds that economy into rural communities, into large
cities, and it is just amazing to see this grow, and how
important our outdoor recreation infrastructure can be. And all
access to trails is, in fact, that piece.
Mr. Curtis. It has surprised me to see the popularity in
high schools, in junior highs and high schools in Utah. And, of
course, when I was in high school, nobody would have ever
imagined a mountain bike team like that. But I think some of
our strongest users are our youth getting out and recreating.
And I can't think of a better thing for us to be facilitating.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Ferguson, nice to have you here. I don't have any
questions for you, but you would like to chime in? Please, go
ahead.
Mr. Ferguson. I will chime in on the SOAR Act.
So, my statements offered support. As a former policy
staffer up here, we always thought about things in terms of
resource conservation, protection. Now working for a consumer
products company, I view the SOAR Act slightly differently. And
the way that I think we all need to think about it is the
guides and outfitters really become the de facto face and touch
points for the Federal Government, because those guides and
those outfitters are introducing people to the outdoors who may
otherwise be too intimidated or too unsure of what to do.
For us at Simms Fishing, we have a network of 6,000-plus
guides that we work with. They are doing the same thing for us,
introducing people to fishing, our gear. So, I think the
opportunity here is to embolden and support our guides, who
become the best missionaries for our Federal lands.
Mr. Curtis. I would agree. And just quickly, because I am
out of time, I think those 6,000 and many others become the
eyes and ears of the Federal Government, become hands of the
Federal Government in protecting these lands and making sure
they are used in the appropriate way, which I know they do very
well, because their livelihoods and their futures depend on
that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Curtis.
Let's follow up on that, Mr. Ferguson. Do you believe that
the FILM Act will help promote hunting opportunities,
delivering that message that you see many of these filmmakers
go out on hunting expeditions, stuff like that, do you think
this is going to help?
Mr. Ferguson. I do. Again, we represent 41 different
brands, and every single one of them has social media. They
have digital media equipment, they have digital media staff,
because they know that in order to sell products, they need to
inspire consumers on how to use our products. And in many
cases, the canvas that we are using are public lands.
So, when we can do more to demonstrate, and highlight, and
bring to life what it is like to be outdoors, that may push the
enthusiast to do more, but it also may push the person who has
never tried it to give it a try. And, ultimately, that is what
we are all trying to do, to get more people into this system
for many of the reasons that have been discussed previously. It
is good for mental health, good for physical health. It is good
for society at large, getting kids off screens.
It may be somewhat an oxymoron, but the more we can create
digital content, I think we can get more people to get off
their screens, and the FILM Act will help us to do that.
Mr. Tiffany. Mr. D'Agostini, last week this Subcommittee
heard in regards to illegal marijuana grows that are happening
in our national forests. Have you experienced that in your
county?
Mr. D'Agostini. Absolutely.
Mr. Tiffany. Does that impact recreation? Have you had to
shut off areas as a result of that? Has law enforcement had to
take an action to restrict access to an area when you have
found an illegal grow like that?
Mr. D'Agostini. So, not having the benefit of the testimony
from last week, I will tell you what my experience is.
A large part of my career was working in the narcotics
field, the drug field. Years ago, 12, 15 years ago, outdoor
marijuana cultivation sites, cartel sites on our national
lands, our forest lands were out of control. Since the
legalization by states or decriminalization of marijuana,
especially in the West, we have seen a dramatic decline. They
have gone from the public lands to private lands. It is much
easier and much safer to pay a landowner $15,000, $20,000,
$30,000 to rent their land for a year, put your workers on
there, raise your crops, harvest them, and get the heck out.
Also, marijuana prices have gone through the floor. What
used to be $4,000 or $5,000 a pound on the East Coast, $2,000 a
pound on the West Coast is down to literally hundreds of
dollars a pound, $300 or $400 a pound on the West Coast and
$1,500 to $2,000 a pound on the East Coast.
Mr. Tiffany. Was it the cartels that controlled those
grows?
Mr. D'Agostini. Yes, predominantly.
Mr. Tiffany. So, it was predominantly the Mexican cartels?
Mr. D'Agostini. Predominantly, yes, sir. That was in my
experience in El Dorado County, and this county surrounding my
county in California.
What has replaced marijuana absolutely, just totally
economics, to the cartels is methamphetamine and fentanyl. It
is much more lucrative to get both across the border, get it up
here, and sell it for a much higher profit than they ever could
the marijuana.
Mr. Tiffany. With any of those drugs, would it help if we
secured the border to prevent them from coming across the
southern border?
Mr. D'Agostini. Rhetorical, but absolutely.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you.
Deputy Director Reynolds, there is currently, what, a $22
billion maintenance backlog? Is that number right?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Mr. Tiffany. In our national parks.
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Mr. Tiffany. And that has grown by about $10 billion? Is
that right?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes.
Mr. Tiffany. Can you discuss the effects of this growing
deferred backlog, and what is the impact on expanding
recreational opportunities?
Mr. Reynolds. Sure. So, you are correct, we have a
significant backlog. The good news is the LRF, the Land
Resource Funds from the GAOA are investing $6.5 billion over
the next few years. We have been benefiting from 2 or 3 years
of that, and we are hoping to have around $3.5 billion invested
into those assets at the end of this third year.
It is extremely appreciated by the parks. We were able to
put a lot of the fundamental development, if you will, like
sewer treatment plants, roads, trails, things like that brought
up to speed, and get rid of the backlog as quickly as we can.
So, combined with also recreation fee dollars, and also
just appropriated dollars we are able to start tackling this,
and we hope to see those numbers go quite a bit down.
Mr. Tiffany. Is the capacity out there to be able to deal
with the maintenance backlog? Are there enough maintenance
people, enough contractors to be able to do this?
Mr. Reynolds. We can always use more people, but we are
doing a lot of that work through our contracting and through
private sector. And we have been experiencing, as probably
everyone has in their public or private lives, a lot of
competition in this market, a lot of inflation problems. But we
are seeing these contracts through, and we are seeing the
investments happening.
Mr. Tiffany. My time has expired. I have a bunch more
questions, but we will save them for the future.
I want to thank all the witnesses for taking the time out
of your days to come here to Washington, DC to testify. Thank
you for all the work that you do, and we really appreciate that
you would share your insights with us.
The members of the Committee may have some additional
questions for both of our panels of witnesses today, and we
will ask all witnesses to respond to these in writing. Under
Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee must submit
questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. on Friday, March
31, 2023. The hearing record will be held open for 10 business
days for these responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:26 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Ann McLane Kuster, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New Hampshire
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on
H.R. 930, The Ski Hill Resources for Economic Development (SHRED) Act
of 2023.
I have the pleasure of representing some of the best skiing in the
country. New Hampshire is home to 32 ski areas. These ski areas serve
millions of visitors each season and bring in over $500 million to our
local economies. Our ski areas operating on National Forest System
lands generate roughly $40 million in Ski Area Permitting fees annually
for the treasury, but these funds never make it back to the agency,
forests, and communities where it's needed most.
The SHRED Act will fix this oversight by creating the Ski Area Fee
Retention Account. Rather than sending payments back to Washington, DC,
ski areas on National Forest System lands will pay fees into the Ski
Area Fee Retention Account. This account will be used to address local
Forest Service needs, such as adequate staffing to administer ski area
permits and reviews of ski area proposals for future growth. Improving
the agency's capacity to administer permits and review proposals is
important for providing ski areas with the certainty they need to make
business decisions on private investments in public land
infrastructure. This bill will also help facilitate the implementation
of year-round recreation activities, thereby creating year-round jobs
and boosting rural economies. Finally, the bill will help improve
avalanche forecasting and education, wildfire preparedness planning and
coordination, and support the leasing of USFS Administrative Sites for
workforce housing and other community needs.
The SHRED Act is supported by the USDA, the U.S. Forest Service,
and the National Ski Areas Association and their 325 ski area members.
______
Statement for the Record
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Department of the Interior
on H.R. 1614, Range Access Act
Introduction
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this Statement for the
Record on H.R. 1614, the Range Access Act, which would require the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to
establish and manage a developed shooting range in each of the
respective agency's districts within five years of enactment.
Background
The Department of the Interior is committed to supporting the
outdoor recreation economy and the many benefits that recreational
activities offer for our communities and economies. President Biden
reflected this priority by recommending increasing access for outdoor
recreation as one of the six early focus areas of the America the
Beautiful initiative, and re-launching the Federal Interagency Council
on Outdoor Recreation. In addition, the Department is advancing these
priorities as guided by the Great American Outdoors Act; the John D.
Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act (Dingell
Act); Executive Order (E.O.) 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home
and Abroad; and E.O. 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for
Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.
The BLM manages approximately 245 million surface acres, located
primarily in 12 western states under the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act. The BLM remains committed to its core mission of
multiple use and sustained yield, which provides for a careful
balancing across many uses and resources to steward the public lands
for current and future generations. Under the BLM's multiple use
mandate, the BLM manages public lands for a broad range of uses, such
as renewable and conventional energy development, livestock grazing,
timber production, hunting and fishing, recreation, and conservation--
including protecting cultural and historic resources.
Outdoor recreation is one of the most popular activities on the
public lands managed by the BLM. In 2022, BLM-managed public lands
attracted approximately 81 million visitors--an increase of 8 million
visitors from 2020. A remarkable variety of recreational activities are
enjoyed on our nation's public lands, including camping, off-highway
vehicle riding, mountain biking, river running, hiking, horseback
riding, climbing, hunting, fishing, and more.
In general, target shooting is allowed on the vast majority of BLM-
administered public lands, being prohibited only on developed
recreation sites and areas specifically closed to recreational
shooting. The BLM works with local communities to determine whether to
establish designated shooting ranges through evaluating appropriate
locations, and assessing interest, need, public safety, and the level
of development for the site. By working with local communities, the BLM
has established nine shooting range sites in five different states,
with plans to open two more in BLM Arizona's Phoenix District in the
near future.
H.R. 1614, Range Access Act
H.R. 1614 would require the BLM and USFS, after determining if
allowable under law and management plan, to establish and manage a
developed shooting range in each district managed by the agencies that
does not already have a range, within five years of enactment and
subject to available appropriations. The bill allows the agencies to
enter into an agreement with another entity to establish and maintain
the shooting range. The two agencies are also required to coordinate
with several groups on the construction of the ranges, including
Tribes, State and local agencies, and shooting clubs, and to consult
with these groups on ways to maximize private funding for the
construction. Additionally, under the bill, both BLM and the USFS are
to cooperate with these stakeholders and partners to ensure that any
shooting range constructed under the bill will not impact any nearby
non-Federal shooting ranges.
The bill further requires the agencies seek to ensure that there is
a designated shooting range meeting the requirements of the bill or
located adjacent to BLM- or Forest Service-managed lands and available
for public use prior to closing an area to recreational shooting,
except in emergency situations. The bill also specifies that agencies
may not require a user to pay a fee to use the shooting ranges.
Finally, H.R. 1614 requires submission of an annual report to Congress
on progress toward meeting the requirements of the law.
Analysis
While the BLM recognizes the sponsors' interest in increasing
access to designated shooting ranges and the need to do so in some
places to ensure public safety and minimize user conflicts, the BLM
cannot support the bill at this time due to the significant challenges
in developing and maintaining the proposed number of shooting ranges,
which would also involve removal of lead ammunition, clean-up of
hazardous materials, and berm management. The BLM notes in some
locations, exercising BLM's authority to charge a user fee may be
warranted for the purposes in the bill, given the large number of
designated shooting ranges envisioned. In addition, the bill does not
acknowledge the importance of public input and assessing community
interest in development of designated shooting ranges in its districts.
Further, while some districts need designated shooting ranges to
promote safety and discourage leaving trash and lead waste on our
public lands, others do not. Nor does every district have sites that
would be optimal for management of designated shooting ranges. The BLM
notes that over 99 percent of public lands are open to recreational
shooting, and the BLM works with local communities and our partners to
provide safe access for these opportunities, while continuing to
identify areas that would function best as designated shooting area on
public lands. In addition to the nine designated shooting range sites
currently managed by the BLM, there are also 26 shooting ranges on
public lands that are administered by non-Federal entities through a
Recreational & Public Purpose (R&PP) Act lease, and 56 shooting ranges
that have been patented and conveyed under the R&PP Act. In total, the
BLM has provided support for a total of 91 designated shooting ranges
through direct management under the R&PP Act.
The BLM defers to USFS regarding the bill's provisions affecting
the management of lands under their jurisdiction.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement for the
record.
______
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Tiffany
AMERICAN WHITEWATER
March 28, 2023
Hon. Tom Tiffany, Chairman
Hon. Joe Neguse, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Federal
Lands, Legislative Hearing; Tuesday, March 28, 2023, 10:15 AM.
Dear Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse:
On behalf of the whitewater paddling community, American Whitewater
writes to express our appreciation for holding a Subcommittee hearing
on outdoor recreation. Several of the individual bills are of
particular interest to the whitewater paddling community including H.R.
930 (Rep. Kuster), ``Ski Hill Resources for Economic Development
(SHRED) Act of 2023''; H.R. 1380 (Rep. Curtis), ``Protecting America's
Rock Climbing (PARC) Act''; H.R. 1527 (Rep. Curtis), ``Simplifying
Outdoor Access for Recreation (SOAR) Act''; H.R. 1576 (Rep. Fulcher),
``Federal Interior Land Media (FILM) Act''; and H.R. 1614 (Rep. Moore
of Utah), ``Range Access Act.'' These legislative proposals before the
Subcommittee would affect recreation management and elevate the
importance of managing whitewater rivers and the public lands they flow
through for their recreation value.
About American Whitewater
American Whitewater is a national non-profit 501(c)(3) river
conservation organization founded in 1954 with approximately 50,000
supporters, 7,000 dues-paying members, and 100 local-based affiliate
clubs, representing whitewater enthusiasts across the nation. American
Whitewater's mission is to protect and restore America's whitewater
rivers and to enhance opportunities to enjoy them safely. The
organization is the primary advocate for the preservation and
protection of whitewater rivers throughout the United States, and
connects the interests of human-powered recreational river users with
ecological and science-based data to achieve the goals within its
mission. Our vision is that our nation's remaining wild and free-
flowing rivers stay that way, our developed rivers are restored to
function and flourish, that the public has access to rivers for
recreation, and that river enthusiasts are active and effective river
advocates. In addition to being whitewater boaters, our members also
engage in other outdoor recreational pursuits that include climbing,
biking, hiking, skiing, and other activities that are relevant to the
bills being considered before the Subcommittee.
H.R. 930 (Rep. Kuster), ``Ski Hill Resources for Economic Development
(SHRED) Act of 2023''
American Whitewater supports the intent of H.R. 930, Ski Hill
Resources for Economic Development (SHRED) Act of 2023, introduced by
Representative Kuster and co-sponsored by Representatives Curtis,
Neguse, LaMalfa, and Pappas, but has concerns with fund distribution.
Specifically, we support keeping ski area fees within the National
Forest system, but have significant concerns with how the funds from
the Ski Area Fee Retention Account would be disbursed and the fiscal
impact this would have on support for other recreation programs. Ski
areas pay a use fee based on the income they derive from use and
occupancy of public lands. As currently drafted, the SHRED Act would
direct at least 60% of these fees back into the Forest Service ski area
program, for the direct benefit of the ski area(s) on the unit from
which these fees were collected. With outdoor recreation participation
at an all-time high, but with insufficient agency staffing and
resources to meet this demand, the distribution of funds under the
SHRED Act would only further exacerbate the agency's ability to meet
public expectations, maintain recreational infrastructure, and protect
the resources the Forest Service is tasked with stewarding. In our view
at least 60% of the Ski Area Fee Retention Account should be directed
to the activities described in paragraph (5)(B) of the Act that benefit
all recreational users. The amount directed to the activities described
in paragraph (5)(A) for ski area projects should not exceed 40% of the
fees collected. This would still provide ample funds and capacity for
the agency's ski area program, which is considerably smaller and more
narrowly focused than the Recreation, Heritage, and Volunteer Resources
program in which it is housed.
We additionally have concerns with the implications of this
legislation for the Forest Service budget given Congressional rules
requiring funding offsets. If the offset comes from the Forest Service
budget it will negatively impact general Forest Service budgeting,
directing scarce funds to the ski area program at the expense of other
programs within the agency including those that provide resources for
other outdoor recreation activities.
H.R. 1380 (Rep. Curtis), ``Protecting America's Rock Climbing (PARC)
Act''
American Whitewater supports H.R. 1380, Protecting America's Rock
Climbing (PARC) Act, introduced by Representative Curtis and co-
sponsored by Representative Neguse. This legislation would protect
sustainable and historic recreational uses of wilderness. It recognizes
that fixed anchors are critical tools for navigating technical terrain
in wilderness that have been utilized and managed as allowable uses
since the Wilderness Act became law in 1964. Fixed anchors include
bolts, slings, pitons, and other tools to safely and sustainably ascend
and descend technical terrain. Typically used for rock climbing,
mountaineering, and backcountry skiing, fixed anchors are occasionally
used in river environments for lowering boats and gear, rappelling, and
securing boats or other gear. Federal agencies have the authority to
manage, regulate and restrict fixed anchors without establishing a new
standard that they are prohibited uses. The legislation would establish
management consistency between federal agencies and make clear that
``placement, use, and maintenance of fixed anchors'' is an allowable
activity in wilderness areas. This legislation is important and timely
given proposed actions under consideration by federal agencies that
would redefine fixed anchors as ``installations,'' under the Wilderness
Act prohibiting their use. The bill also clarifies that federal
agencies must provide an opportunity for public notice and comment on
proposed changes to fixed anchor policy, while providing agencies with
authority to take emergency actions related to fixed anchor management
if it is necessary to protect natural resources or public safety.
H.R. 1527 (Rep. Curtis), ``Simplifying Outdoor Access for Recreation
(SOAR) Act''
American Whitewater supports H.R. 1527, Simplifying Outdoor Access
for Recreation (SOAR) Act, introduced by Representative Curtis and co-
sponsored by Representative Neguse. The SOAR Act includes several
provisions that are of particular importance to the whitewater paddling
community.
Capacity Limits and Allocations
While allocations and capacity limits for special recreation
permits for areas in which use is allocated are not covered in this
bill, the fact that the bill addresses permitting has raised questions
on allocations for special recreation permits on fully allocated river
systems. The majority of popular multi-day river trips in the West
require these permits for both members of the public and guided trips;
allocations are typically split into a set number of launches for
outfitted trips and those available to the public through
recreation.gov.\1\ Many of these allocations were set decades ago in
management plans that need to be updated. With advances in equipment
and skill level, more and more people are capable of organizing their
own trip and do not require the services of an outfitter and guide. The
odds of securing a permit in the Four Rivers Lottery (Middle Fork
Salmon, Main Salmon, Selway, and Snake Rivers) have been reduced from a
1-in-20 to a 1-in-80 chance in just the past few years. While some
individuals have a means to buy a seat on an outfitted trip, the cost
for this experience continues to increase, raising significant equity
issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Allocating River Use: a review of approaches and existing
systems for river professionals, Prepared by Doug Whittaker, Ph.D. and
Bo Shelby, Ph.D. Confluence Research and Consulting; July 2008,
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Subcommittee considers future legislation on outdoor
recreation and oversight hearings with agency witnesses, we request
that the Subcommittee work to ensure that opportunities to enjoy fully
allocated rivers are equitably distributed with adequate opportunities
for the public. In many cases this would require revisiting outdated
river management plans, revisiting capacity limits and allocations
based on modern social science, applying modern data analytics to
assess demand and distribute user days accordingly, and providing
sufficient appropriations to do this work.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We have previously raised these issues with the Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee. See Written Testimony of Dr. Thomas C.
O'Keefe, at page 8 at Opportunities to Improve Access, Infrastructure,
and Permitting for Outdoor Recreation, Hearing before the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, One Hundred and Sixteenth
Congress, March 14, 2019, Senate Hearing 116-290, .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I, Section 102(d)
This section would permanently authorize certain existing sections
of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) including
definitions in Section 801; fees for use of highways or roads and
specialized recreation uses of Federal recreational lands and waters
(group activities, recreation events, motorized recreational vehicle
use) in Section 803; and use of fees at a specific site or area,
limitation on use of fees, and administrative costs in Section 808.
While we do not oppose language to permanently authorize these
provisions, we request that the Subcommittee conduct a more
comprehensive oversight hearing on FLREA given the regular short-term
extensions that occur through the appropriations process. FLREA should
be more extensively evaluated by the Subcommittee to consider the need
for revisions to the authority for fee collection it provides and
better inform future extensions.
Title I, Section 104(b):
American Whitewater supports language that allows outfitters to
``voluntarily and temporarily return to the Secretary concerned 1 or
more surplus service days, to be made available to any other existing
or potential permittee.'' For special recreation permits, for an area
in which use is fully allocated and a permit is required for all
visitors, this would allow available service days to be made available
to the public when not utilized by an outfitter.
Title I, Section 105(a):
We strongly support making information on availability of special
recreation permits visible to the public through a transparent format
on a website as well as an email notification system. This level of
visibility will help everyone and take the administrative process
associated with special recreation permits out of the backrooms of
agencies ensuring that everyone has knowledge of where the agency might
be making opportunities for special recreation permits available. A
transparent notification process allows organizations like ours and the
general public to track plans to issue new permits and raise any
concerns early in the process. We believe this will enhance
opportunities for public participation and engagement when the agency
begins to consider new special recreation permits.
Title I, Section 107(a):
American Whitewater appreciates the careful wording of Section 107
on Forest Service permit reviews that an increase in actual use is
``not to exceed the level allocated to the special recreation permit
holder on the date on which the special recreation permit was issued.''
This makes clear that a limit on allocation exists for special
recreation permit holders consistent with underlying management plans.
Title I, Section 111(a):
We fully support changes to the Federal Lands Recreation
Enhancement Act to ``consult with States to coordinate the availability
of Federal and State Recreation Passes to allow a purchaser to buy a
Federal recreation pass and a State recreation pass in the same
transaction.'' We routinely receive complaints from our members on the
myriad of passes that are often required in a small geographic area
with different state and federal land management agencies that are
typically not obvious or apparent to the public.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ An example of a trailhead sign illustrating 15 different
possible passes and which ones fulfill requirements to park at a
recreation site: .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I, Section 112:
We fully support making the America The Beautiful Pass readily
available for purchase including through online sales channels. We also
support options for online payment of entrance fees and amenity fees.
Title I, Section 113:
We appreciate careful language of this section to make clear that
the bill does not affect concessions contracts for those providing
services in National Parks and would therefore not create any new
authority for the National Park Service to increase outfitter
allocations on rivers like the Colorado in Grand Canyon National Park
under any circumstances.
Title II, Section 201:
We support language in this section for federal land managers to
``extend the recreation season or increase recreation use in a
sustainable manner during the offseason.'' The reality is this use is
occurring but is not being actively managed. As an example, whitewater
boaters who enjoy winter rains or the spring snowmelt engage in
recreation that is not aligned with the typical Memorial Day to Labor
Day summer recreation season. Too often we encounter locked gates,
closed campgrounds, and areas that are not accessible during the peak
of the whitewater boating season. Currently, ``off-season'' use is not
being appropriately recognized or managed resulting in unacceptable
resource impacts and safety concerns including sanitation issues or
improperly parked vehicles. The bill provides direction for
``improvement of access to the area to extend the season'' and will
provide better access to and management of opportunities that might
take place outside of the summer recreation season. Fully realizing the
benefits of this section requires a commensurate increase in
appropriations.
Title II, Section 202:
We support adoption of recreation performance metrics for
evaluation of land managers and strongly support inclusion of ``quality
of visitor experience'' at Section 202(b)(2)(E) and ``visitor
satisfaction'' at Section 202(b)(2)(G). Too often recreation is
measured by the number of visitors or expansion of facilities.
Opportunities to enjoy areas of low use levels, as well as access to
high quality experiences for solitude and adventure, are important for
many recreational experiences people seek; land managers who recognize
this through their actions should be evaluated in consideration of this
fact. Recreation is a core function of public lands with profound
public benefits and, along with other uses of public lands, merits
commensurate performance metrics.
Title III, Section 301:
American Whitewater supports this title that would provide
authority for cooperative agreements between organizations like ours
and federal agencies. Authorized programs could include on-the-ground
projects like development or maintenance of a river put-in but also
includes programs that ``increase awareness, understanding, and
stewardship of Federal land through the development, publication, or
distribution of educational materials and products.'' We believe this
could provide new partnership opportunities for information sharing and
coordination of recreational river resources.
H.R. 1576 (Rep. Fulcher), ``Federal Interior Land Media (FILM) Act''
American Whitewater supports the intent of H.R. 1576, the Federal
Interior Land Media (FILM) Act sponsored by Representative Fulcher that
would result in a much needed update to 54 U.S.C. Sec. 100905. Federal
law has not kept pace with the development of new technologies (e.g.,
high quality smartphones, GoPros, etc.) that allow individuals to
produce films with minimal equipment and a light footprint.
Additionally the line between what constitutes commercial and non-
commercial filming has blurred with the myriad of new channels for
content distribution. Current federal law includes exemptions to permit
requirements for commercial photography if the activity takes place
where members of the public are generally allowed and does not utilize
models or props that are not a part of the site's natural or cultural
resources. This legislation would establish a corresponding set of
exemptions for filming when eight conditions are met, but it is
important for individuals to understand and adhere to these
requirements. Given impacts we have seen from even the smallest film
crews (e.g. tree limbing or brush clearing to get a shot), we would
support establishment of a system for education and accountability for
film projects to ensure that all filmmakers understand the
requirements. One way to do this would be through a no cost (or low
cost) permit that individuals could obtain online; we believe that
should be considered either in the legislation or through a public
process prior to implementation of new requirements and exemptions.
H.R. 1614 (Rep. Moore of Utah) ``Range Access Act''
American Whitewater supports the intent of H.R. 1614, the Range
Access Act sponsored by Representative Moore that would establish
designated shooting ranges on public land, but we have concerns with
some of the specific provisions. In many areas where our members
recreate, they have reported resource impacts and safety concerns with
unregulated target shooting. We appreciate the intent of this
legislation to address the issue and provide designated shooting
ranges. As drafted however, we are concerned that the legislation will
not lead to the desired outcome and will only exacerbate resources
impacts and safety issues and constrain the ability of agencies to
manage these.
We have a specific concern with Section 2(c)(2) that would limit
the ability of the agency to close an area to recreational shooting if
a designated shooting range is not available. While we appreciate the
intent of this section to provide a designated shooting range on all
public land units, the legislation includes no appropriation to
implement this measure. We are concerned that the practical result will
be that agencies will be unable to construct designated shooting ranges
on many land management units and will then be unable to close high-use
recreational areas where target shooting is inappropriate and a safety
issue.
We are also concerned with the language of Section 2(b)(3)(B)(iv)
stating that the agency ``may not require a user to pay a fee to use a
designated shooting range.'' To the extent these facilities provide the
standard amenities under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement
Act,\4\ all Forest users should be treated equitably. A lack of user
fees could also result in a lack of agency resources for brass or lead
clean up or other ongoing maintenance activities necessary to safely
maintain these shooting ranges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 16 U.S. Code Sec. 6802(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recommend that these provisions limiting the ability of the
agency to institute closures and exempting this user group from fees be
removed from the legislation.
Conclusion
American Whitewater thanks the Subcommittee for holding this
hearing on outdoor recreation. Please do not hesitate to contact us if
you have any questions regarding our testimony.
Sincerely,
Kevin R. Colburn, Thomas O'Keefe, PhD,
National Stewardship
Director Pacific Northwest Stewardship
Director
______
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation
March 27, 2023
Hon. Tom Tiffany, Chairman
Hon. Joe Neguse, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse:
In advance of your Subcommittee's legislative hearing on Tuesday,
March 28, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation (CSF) would like to
express our strong support for H.R. 1614, the Range Access Act. This
legislation is led in a bipartisan fashion by Congressional Sportsmen's
Caucus (CSC) Member Rep. Blake Moore and CSC Co-Chair Rep. Jimmy
Panetta. CSF would like to thank Reps. Moore and Panetta for their
commitment to sportsmen and women as well as the Subcommittee for
holding this hearing.
The Range Access Act will improve access opportunities for
America's 15.9 million paid hunting license holders and nearly 32
million recreational shooters who contribute more than $55 billion to
America's GDP. Last year alone, through manufacturer level excise taxes
on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment, hunters and target
shooters contributed nearly $1.2 billion for on-the-ground conservation
through the Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson Act)--the
largest source of wildlife conservation funding in the country.
Approximately 80% of the funding provided through this Act is directly
attributable to target shooters, who collectively spend more than
hunters on firearms, ammunition, and equipment.
A recent study of recreational shooting by the National Shooting
Sports Foundation, Assessing the Quality and Availability of Hunting
and Shooting Access in the United States, clearly indicates the
importance of federal public lands for target shooting. The report
indicates that 21% of recreational shooters almost exclusively use
public land for target shooting. In the report, the top recreational
shooting access issues identified are ``lack of land on which to shoot,
land being too far away, and a lack of information about lands on which
to shoot''. Given the financial contributions of recreational target
shooters to conservation and local economies, it is critical to provide
sufficient and accessible shooting ranges across federal lands.
The bipartisan Range Access Act requires the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to have a minimum
of at least one designated shooting range in each BLM and USFS
district. Specifically, the legislation requires the Secretaries of the
Interior and Agriculture to inventory existing target shooting ranges
and identify at least one suitable location for a target shooting range
in each BLM and USFS district. Within five years of enactment of H.R.
1614, BLM and USFS would be required to construct a minimum of one free
public target shooting range in each of their respective districts.
Additionally, H.R. 1614 will help provide opportunities for
adaptive shooting ranges that can increase access for persons
identified as disabled. Dispersed shooting across federal lands can
often be difficult for the 74 million disabled individuals. The
National Center on Health, Physical Activity and Disability, a public
health organization that promotes opportunities for persons with
disabilities, states ``Target Shooting is one of the easiest
recreational sports and activities to adapt for people with
disabilities. Shooting can be enjoyed by everyone, including
individuals with limited hand and arm function and individuals who are
visually impaired''. Fortunately, the Range Access Act can facilitate
and improve opportunities for disabled persons to enjoy recreational
shooting by providing established, structured ranges that are easily
accessible.
Furthermore, the Range Access Act provides an opportunity to reduce
waste and increase recycling across federal public lands. Recreational
shooting ranges are often developed and designed using the
Environmental Protection Agency's Best Management Practices that assist
and guide range managers in efforts to mitigate waste from spent
bullets and shot. At firearm ranges, berms are designed to absorb and
concentrate spent bullets in areas behind the target. This provides an
opportunity for the reclamation and recycling of spent bullets through
systems that separate vegetation and soils from the spent bullet and
shot. Once separated, the spent bullets and shot may be recycled and
reused in future ammunition and other metal-based products. By
establishing designated ranges, the Range Access Act provides
opportunities for federal and state agencies to work with non-
governmental partners to reclaim and recycle spent bullets and shot at
designated shooting ranges.
Finally, as the Subcommittee is aware, H.R. 1614 is consistent with
BLM and USFS multiple use mandates as codified through the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield
(MUSY) Act. Both FLPMA and MUSY require the BLM and USFS to support and
provide recreational opportunities, to include target shooting.
Recreational shooting was further codified as an appropriate use of
federal lands through Secs. 4102-4103 of S. 47, the Dingell Act, which
stated that ``Federal land shall be open to hunting, fishing, and
recreational shooting, in accordance with applicable law . . .''.
Furthermore, Sec. 4104 of the Dingell Act provided the Secretaries of
the Interior and Agriculture authority to lease and permit target
shooting ranges within certain federal lands that includes the BLM and
USFS. The Range Access Act will help fulfil Sec. 4104 of the Dingell
Act.
In summary, the Range Access Act is an important step to enhance
public access for America's sportsmen and women and to reduce waste on
federal public lands. The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation thanks
Reps. Moore and Panetta for leading the Range Access Act and the
Subcommittee for holding a hearing on this important bill.
Sincerely,
Jeff Crane,
President and CEO
______
AMERICAN ALPINE CLUB
Golden, Colorado
Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: March 28, 2023, Committee Hearing to Consider Legislation
Dear Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva:
On behalf of the American Alpine Club, thank you for holding a
hearing centering on bills that will certainly enhance and improve
access to outdoor recreation on federal public lands to all Americans.
We are grateful for the opportunity to provide a comment on The Protect
America's Rock Climbing Act, H.R. 1380.
The American Alpine Club (AAC), based in Golden, Colorado, is a
national climbing and mountaineering organization that represents the
interests and values of both our members and the greater climbing
community which consists of more than 8 million people and generates
$12.45 billion a year for the outdoor recreation economy. Created in
1902, our work centers around activating our members in support of the
protection of climbing areas and critical landscapes, advancing access
to public lands and climbing for all Americans, protecting and
supporting outdoor recreation communities, and mitigating the climate
crisis through thoughtful land management practices.
H.R. 1380, The Protect America's Rock Climbing Act
Many people enjoy their first time climbing outside in Wilderness
through a facilitated recreation experience offered by groups like the
American Alpine Club's volunteer chapters, other recreation non-profit
organizations, or through a guide or outfitter. Specifically, many of
the AAC's members work as climbing guides, or utilize guiding services
to experience new climbing destinations or obtain climbing education.
Guided recreation experiences of this nature, utilizing fixed-anchors,
offer climbers new and experienced alike, the opportunity to
participate in the sport in a safe environment that not only offers
participants the ability to gain new skills, but the ability to learn
how to recreate responsibly and be conscientious visitors in
Wilderness. These facilitated experiences are particularly valuable for
helping to connect underserved or environmental justice communities who
have historically been deprived of engaging in recreation opportunities
on public lands.
Wilderness plays a vital role in American climbing legacy and
future. Some of the most iconic and historic climbing in the country is
located within Wilderness, including areas like El Capitan, The Diamond
on Longs Peak, Joshua Tree's Wonderland of Rocks, and North Carolina's
Linville Gorge. Climbers have historically relied on the legal and
conditional use, placement, and maintenance of bolts and other fixed
anchors in Wilderness. These anchors help keep these areas pristine,
while still allowing climbers, search and rescue teams, and others to
safely ascend and descend technical routes. The Protect America's Rock
Climbing Act would bring consistency to federal management of climbing
in Wilderness areas across land management agencies, including the
management of fixed anchors, bolts, and other hardware. It enjoys broad
support from recreationists and conservationists across the country.
Conclusion
We appreciate the committee's thoughtful work to improve safety and
access to outdoor recreation opportunities for all Americans on public
lands across the country. Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in. As
this process continues, we look forward to serving as a resource to the
committee and welcome any further opportunity to be involved in
assisting in advancing access to recreation on public lands.
Respectfully,
Byron Harvison,
Director, Policy and Government Affairs
______
USA CLIMBING
Salt Lake City, Utah
March 27, 2023
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: The Protect America's Rock Climbing Act, H.R. 1380
To the House Committee on Natural Resources:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit the following comments into
the record in support of the Protect America's Rock Climbing Act, H.R.
1380. USA Climbing supports the well-being, development, and
competitive excellence of our athletes as we advance the accessibility
and growth of the climbing community nationwide. We serve as the
national governing body of the sport of competition climbing in the
United States, recognized by the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee
(USOPC), International Federation of Sport Climbing (IFSC), and the
International Olympic Committee (IOC).
Our headquarters are in Salt Lake City, Utah, where we are
surrounded by federal public lands and Wilderness areas that offer our
community world-class recreational opportunities, including climbing.
We chose to locate our headquarters in this community in part because
of the recreational resources that are available here, which we believe
contribute to the overall health, well-being, and happiness of our
staff and athletes. Environmental Stewardship is one of our core
values, and we believe strongly in the responsible use, protection, and
preservation of the natural environment.
As an organization that is focused on sharing the benefits of rock
climbing with a growing community, and on protecting the environment,
we strongly support the PARC Act. Many of the most inspiring and
historic climbing areas in the United States are in federal Wilderness
areas, including places like El Capitan and Half Dome in Yosemite
National Park, Mt. Whitney in the John Muir Wilderness, the Diamond on
Longs Peak in Rocky Mountain National Park, and many others. In our
community in Utah, local climbers have enjoyed climbing in Wilderness
areas for over a hundred years in places like the Lone Peak Wilderness,
the Twin Peaks Wilderness, and the Mt. Olympus Wilderness, which are
all easily accessible from Salt Lake City.
The PARC Act would clarify that recreational climbing, including
the placement, use, and maintenance of fixed anchors, are allowable
uses in Wilderness areas. Further, it would require nationwide guidance
on how federal land management agencies ought to manage these historic
recreational uses for the benefit of the American people. This
important guidance from Congress will help to ensure that the people of
Utah and future generations of outdoor enthusiasts, including our
athletes, will be able to enjoy the adventure, solitude, and challenge
offered by Wilderness climbing well into the future. We are especially
concerned that federal land management agencies appear set on
redefining fixed anchors as prohibited installations under the
Wilderness Act. We believe this move would seriously jeopardize the
safety of our athletes and other members of the climbing community; it
is completely unnecessary for managing climbing sustainably while
protecting natural resources and cultural values.
USA Climbing believes strongly that sustainable access to climbing
and other forms of outdoor recreation contributes to the overall
economic vitality of Utah and the livability and attractiveness of a
place like Salt Lake City. When we offer people the opportunity to
connect to nature and to push their physical and mental limits, they
develop a deeper connection to the land and will stand to advocate for
its protection. Climbing is quickly growing into one of the best ways
to connect youth to the outdoors--to set them on a path of physical,
mental, and spiritual well-being. We need to facilitate this
connection, not make it more difficult and dangerous. The PARC Act will
help to ensure that climbers around the country can continue to
experience and appreciate Wilderness areas and everything that they
offer.
We urge the House Representatives to pass this legislation to
support the outdoor recreation economy in Utah and around the country.
Respectfully,
Marc Norman,
Chief Executive Officer
______
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Westerman
Statement for the Record
The Pew Charitable Trusts
on H.R. 1380, Protecting America's Rock Climbing Act
The Pew Charitable Trusts' U.S. conservation work seeks to conserve
ecologically and culturally significant lands and waters through
collaboration with policymakers, communities and businesses, Tribes,
and many others.
Pew supports the Protecting America's Rock Climbing Act (H.R.
1380). This bill would direct the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior to issue guidance on climbing management within designated
wilderness areas, in accordance with the Wilderness Act. For decades,
federal land management agencies have permitted the use of climbing
using fixed anchors and other tools that are critical for the safe
navigation of technical terrain on public lands. Recently, some land
managers have proposed to reinterpret the Wilderness Act and reclassify
these safety devices such that they would be prohibited within
designated wilderness areas.
Conservation designations such as wilderness areas are supported by
a broad cross-section of the public, including hunters, anglers, other
recreational users, and local business owners and elected officials who
understand how such designations can provide a significant boost to the
local economy. Successful conservation designations depend on a shared
understanding of the activities that are allowed. Reclassifying uses
post-designation is a serious concern because it changes this shared
understanding, creating uncertainty for agency staff, recreational
users, and gateway communities.
H.R. 1380 emphasizes the importance of policy stability and ensures
that the public will have ample opportunity to provide input before
federal land management agencies make changes that significantly modify
the allowable uses of public lands.
Thank you for considering Pew's views on this legislation. We look
forward to working with Representatives Curtis and Neguse and the
Committee as the bill moves through the legislative process.
Contacts:
Geoff Brown, [email protected]
John Seebach, [email protected]
______
American Mountain Guides Association
Boulder, CO
March 28, 2023
Hon. Tom Tiffany, Chairman
Hon. Joe Neguse, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
The American Mountain Guides Association (AMGA) respectfully
submits this testimony for inclusion in the public record regarding the
House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Federal Lands,
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1527, the Simplifying Outdoor Access for
Recreation Act (SOAR Act), held on March 28, 2023. The AMGA also hereby
provides testimony for inclusion in the public record regarding the
House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Federal Lands,
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1380, the Protect America's Rock Climbing
Act (PARC Act), also held on March 28, 2023. The American Mountain
Guides Association supports both the SOAR Act and the PARC Act for the
reasons stated herein.
About American Mountain Guides Association
The American Mountain Guides Association (AMGA) is a 501(c)(3)
educational non-profit organization that provides training and
certification for climbing instructors, mountain guides, and
backcountry skiing guides throughout the United States. Founded in
1979, the AMGA has trained over 13,000 climbing and skiing guides who
provide outdoor experiences for the public on federal lands. As the
American representative to the International Federation of Mountain
Guide Associations, the AMGA institutes international standards for the
mountain guiding profession in the United States and serves as an
educational body for land management agencies, outdoor businesses,
clubs, and other recreation stakeholders. Of additional relevance to
today's hearing, our membership includes outfitters and guides who have
been operating on federal lands since the inception of the modern
commercial recreation permitting system. We have extensive experience
with federal land management systems, climbing management including
fixed anchors, and recreation special use permitting. We welcome the
opportunity to provide testimony on the SOAR Act and PARC Act.
AMGA Support for the SOAR Act
The American Mountain Guides Association appreciates the
Subcommittee's recognition of the need to improve access to federal
lands and we commend Chair Tom Tiffany, Ranking Member Joe Neguse,
Vice-Chair John Curtis and the Federal Lands Subcommittee for taking
steps to advance legislation that will enhance opportunities for
Americans from all walks of life to access and enjoy federal lands. In
particular, we believe there is a significant opportunity to increase
access to recreational opportunities on federal lands by modernizing
the outfitter and guide permitting systems of the federal land
agencies. These systems are antiquated and inefficient, and they impose
unnecessary and costly administrative burdens on land management
agencies. These problems prevent outfitting and guiding businesses from
growing to their full potential and limit opportunities for the public
to benefit from the assistance of an outfitter, guide, outdoor
education center, outdoor adaptive program, veteran's outdoor program,
or organized outdoor club.
To illustrate the ways in which the SOAR Act will help to address
these challenges, we share the following case studies.
1. The American Alpine Institute and the American Mountain Guides
Association partner to offer guide training courses for
veterans. These courses can be paid for with VA benefits
and they prepare veterans for careers in the mountain
guiding industry. Several courses are offered annually in
the eastern Cascade Mountains of Washington State. The
courses are very popular and there is typically a waitlist
for each course. Despite the high level of interest, it is
not possible to offer additional trainings because the
Okanogan National Forest has been unable to complete the
administrative steps that are necessary to authorize
additional courses. Consequently, fewer opportunities are
available for veterans to prepare for careers in the
mountain guiding industry. Section 103 of the bill,
Permitting Process Improvements, would alleviate these
issues by directing the agencies to evaluate the special
recreation permitting process and identify opportunities to
eliminate duplicative processes, reduce costs, and decrease
processing times. It would also direct the agencies to
eliminating the requirement to conduct a needs assessment
as a condition of issuing a special recreation permit,
except where required by law.
2. The Colorado Mountain School (CMS), located in Boulder, Colorado,
provides instruction and guiding in rock climbing,
mountaineering, backcountry skiing, and avalanche
awareness. CMS has been a permittee of the Arapaho-
Roosevelt National Forest for over a decade and has
maintained full compliance with the terms and conditions of
their permit throughout that time. Despite acceptable
performance, CMS is required to resubmit a temporary permit
application every 180 days because the agency is unable to
complete the analyses required to issue a longer-term
permit. The repetitive reissuance of a short-term permit is
unnecessarily time consuming and inefficient for both the
Colorado Mountain School and the Forest Service. Section
104(c) of the bill, Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management Temporary Special Recreation Permits, would
authorize the Forest Service to issue a temporary special
recreation permit for a term up to two years in length.
This will bring significant new efficiencies in the form of
less frequent permit processing.
3. Climbing guide services based in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of
California provide guided climbs of highly sought-after
peaks that lie on the border between Sequoia-Kings Canyon
National Park and the Inyo National Forest. Typically,
these trips are 2-3 days in length with over 95% the trip
spent on the Inyo National Forest and only a few hours
spent in Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park. Under the
current system, a separate permit is required from each
agency. It is time consuming and costly for guides to apply
for and maintain multiple permits with different agencies.
It is also inefficient for the agencies to issue two
separate permits to the same outfitter for a single
activity. Recognizing the problem, the agencies have
expressed an interest in collaborating to issue a single,
joint permit. However, existing authorities appear to be
insufficient for such collaboration to occur. Section 106
of the bill, Permits for Multijurisdictional Trips, would
establish the necessary authorities for the agencies to
offer a single joint special recreation permit for guided
trips that cross agency boundaries.
The Simplifying Outdoor Access for Recreation Act will clarify
existing authorities and establish new authorities that will make
special recreation permits easier for outfitters and guides to obtain
and manage, and easier for the agencies to administer. In the following
section, we outline several additional provisions in the bill that are
particularly notable.
In Section 107(b), Additional Capacity, the Forest Service is
authorized to assign additional visitor-use days to a recreation
service provider at any time, provided capacity is available. This will
enable recreation service providers to meet the growing demand for
recreational experiences and contribute to the growth of the local
economies, many of which are in rural areas adjacent to federal lands.
In Section 108, Liability, the bill authorizes the agencies to
allow special recreation permit holders to use liability waivers to the
extent they are authorized by applicable state law. Presently, there is
inconsistency among land management agencies, and even within
individual agencies, on the use of liability release forms. The Bureau
of Land Management generally allows them, the U.S. Forest Service
allows them in some locations but not others, and the National Park
Service does not allow them at all. The bill would resolve these
inconsistencies and establish the principle that State law controls the
validity of liability waivers.
In Section 108(b), Indemnification by Government Entities, the bill
directs the agencies to waive the existing indemnification requirement
for state-based institutions that are prohibited by state or local law
from providing indemnification to the United States provided they carry
the minimum required amount of liability insurance. Under current law,
state-based institutions such as colleges, universities, and
municipalities are unable to hold special recreation permits due to
their inability to fulfill the indemnification requirement. Section
108(b) of the bill would remedy this situation and enable college
outdoor recreation programs and municipal recreation districts, many of
which offer low-cost outdoor courses and trips, to provide outdoor
programs on federal lands.
In Section 109, Cost Recovery Reform, the bill addresses a proposal
released by the Forest Service on March 9, 2023 that would eliminate an
existing fee exemption for the first 50 hours of agency time spent
processing an application for a special recreation permit. If the
Forest Service proposal is approved, special recreation permits will
become significantly more costly. The additional cost will be a major
barrier for small businesses and organizations, especially those who
serve under-represented populations. Section 109 of the SOAR Act would
uphold current regulations--which have existed for many years--by
maintaining the fee exemption for the first 50 hours of application
processing time for a special recreation permit. This will enable small
businesses and non-profit organizations to continue providing high-
quality outdoor experiences for the public while also creating jobs and
contributing to their local economies.
The opportunities for improvement that are contained in the SOAR
Act are truly bipartisan in nature. This is demonstrated by the wide
range of Democrats, Republicans, and outdoor industry stakeholders who
support the bill. As further evidence of bipartisan support, the bill
was reported out of the House Natural Resources Committee with
unanimous consent on July 29, 2020 and again on October 13, 2021. The
broad array of support is not by accident. The SOAR Act has been
developed over a period of 9 years with extensive input from the
outdoor recreation community and in consultation with conservation
groups and land management agencies. The bill has been carefully
written and revised to accommodate the interests of diverse parties
while promulgating change that is much needed and long overdue. With
the SOAR Act, Congress has an opportunity to enact strong, bipartisan
legislation that will truly enhance the recreational benefits of
federal lands and empower the American people to enjoy them.
AMGA Support for the PARC Act
The American Mountain Guides Association applauds the introduction
of the Protect America's Rock Climbing Act by Utah Representative John
Curtis and Colorado Representative Joe Neguse. The bill will preserve
access to thousands of rock climbing routes in wilderness areas across
the country.
Many climbs in wilderness areas have occasional fixed anchors--such
as a nylon sling wrapped around a tree, a metal piton placed in a
crack, or a small bolt affixed to the rock--to allow a climbing party
to safely ascend and descend a rock face or a mountain. Guides are
highly reliant upon these fixed anchors to provide an enjoyable and
safety-oriented experience for their clients. If the ability to use and
maintain these anchors is threatened, many of the ``trade routes'' that
guides have been using for decades to operate their businesses would
become unreasonably dangerous, or altogether impossible. These trade
routes exist in iconic climbing areas such as Yosemite National Park,
CA; Joshua Tree National Park, CA; the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National
Forest, UT; North Cascades National Park, WA; Shoshone National Forest,
WY; and many others. Without reliable access to fixed anchors, the
American public would be deprived of the opportunity to experience the
unique character of wilderness climbing in these locations, and guiding
businesses would face significant economic impacts. The economic
impacts are not to be understated. Many climbing guide services are
small businesses that employ local workers in rural communities
adjacent to federal lands. If a guide service is forced to cease or
limit its operations in wilderness, it could cause irreparable harm to
the business, the workers, and the local economy.
Occasionally, while making an ascent of a climbing route, a guide
will encounter a fixed anchor that must be maintained. For example, a
nylon sling wrapped around a tree can become worn over time due to the
effects of sun, temperature, and repeated use. Similarly, a metal piton
that has been placed in a crack in the rock might need to be adjusted
to remain secure. If a guide encounters a fixed anchor that needs
maintenance, it is imperative that the guide be able to perform the
necessary anchor maintenance for the safety of the climbing team.
The American Mountain Guides Association strongly supports the
existing guidelines in National Park Service Director's Order #41 \1\
(DO41) which provide a comprehensive framework for the effective
management of fixed anchors in wilderness. Issued in 2013, DO41
establishes the principle that fixed anchors should be rare in
wilderness, it prohibits bolt-intensive climbs, and it requires prior
authorization for the placement of new fixed anchors in wilderness. On
the topic of fixed anchor maintenance, DO41 states that maintenance of
fixed anchors ``may'' require prior authorization. This is a reasonable
and practical approach that generally allows for critical maintenance
to be performed on site without prior authorization, but which provides
the agency with discretion to require prior authorization in specific,
unique circumstances. The DO41 guidelines provide NPS land managers
with effective tools to manage climbing and protect the climbing
resource, including Wilderness character, while providing valuable
visitor experiences and supporting local economies. The PARC Act would
support DO41 by protecting the use, placement, and maintenance of
climbing fixed anchors, and it would promote the development of similar
climbing management policies in other land agencies that currently lack
comprehensive guidelines (Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See NPS Director's Order #41 found at https://www.nps.gov/
policy/DOrders/DO_41.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the aforementioned reasons, the American Mountain Guides
Association strongly supports the Protect America's Rock Climbing Act.
The PARC Act will ensure climbing guides are able to continue providing
exceptional outdoor experiences for the public at a time when more and
more Americans are seeking to experience the enjoyment, challenge, and
connection to the natural world that is unique to rock climbing in
wilderness areas.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective. We look
forward to working with Congress to implement the improvements and
critical measures contained in the SOAR Act and the PARC Act.
Sincerely,
Matt Wade,
Deputy Director
______
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Fulcher
Statement for the Record
Jeff Tucker
General Manager, Idaho Public Television
Written Testimony for the FILM Act
Thank you for allowing Idaho Public Television the ability to
submit written testimony on the FILM Act both S. 1616 and the markup
version that is in process. Both make progress with the issues our
staff have seen over the years regarding filming on public lands.
As background, IdahoPTV is a state agency under the Idaho State
Board of Education. We operate transmitters and translators that cover
almost 99% of the state. We are the only statewide broadcaster and the
only media outlet producing long- and short-form content for Idahoans
for broadcast (over-the-air, cable and satellite), streaming and social
media platforms. We have a wide range of audience demographics and are
known for not only being a PBS member station but also a strong and
consistent producer of local content that is consistently ranked among
the Top 10 most-viewed on IdahoPTV.
Outdoor Idaho, now in its 40th season, is a highly regarded show
for its award-winning journalism about the Idaho outdoors, including
coverage of public land issues and outdoor recreation. The series is
educational in that it shows viewers the myriad of outdoor recreation
activities and how to do them responsibly and safely. It also covers
controversial topics and attempts to explain issues that focus on the
state's natural resources and public lands uses.
Staff assigned to produce the series have seen its share of issues
pertaining to permitting on federal and even state lands. Fortunately,
we enjoy a good working relationship with land management agencies.
Now, as in the past, we are typically able to work out any differences,
including permitting requests, with area managers. We have great
respect for the federal land managers in our area. And they typically
have respect for our work too. But this does not fix an issue we see
with the inconsistency across our region in respect to permitting for
our work on public land. (Attachment 1)
This is not a new issue among media outlets in the West. We have
documented permitting issues dating back to 2006. In 2014 the U.S.
Forest Service (USFS) announced public sessions to gain input on the
proposed directive for commercial photography on Forest Service lands.
In his letter to Regional Foresters and others, former Chief Thomas
Tidwell laid out the essential test for how journalistic work should
define the regulatory decision-making. (Attachment 2). He starts by
stating that journalism is not a commercial activity and asks, ``Is the
primary purpose of the filming activity to inform the public or is it
to sell a product for profit?'' His letter outlines many of the same
rules as do S. 1616 and the markup for recognizing that journalistic
work should not require a permit.
A report was produced titled, Joint Comments of Public
Broadcasters, from a group of public media entities as an official
response to the USFS public sessions. It outlined access issues from
2006 to 2014 encountered by IdahoPTV and Oregon Public Broadcasting.
(Attachment 3)
Oregon Field Guide, another long running series that focuses on
outdoor issues, produced by Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB), has also
seen its share of permitting issues. OPB was one of the partners listed
in the 2014 Joint Comments of Public Broadcasters. We alerted Ed Jahn,
executive producer for the program, to the proposed FILM act and he was
very intrigued by the improvements offered by the legislation. The
Oregon Field Guide staff has worked hard to facilitate in-person
meetings to communicate the need for permit exemption uniformity across
all National Forests. Land managers for Region 6 (Oregon and
Washington) agreed to help facilitate that discussion.
Jahn agrees that with the explicit expansion in language in S.
1616, First amendment rights are reinforced. But he states that having
S. 1616 cover both the Interior and Agricultural jurisdiction is also
important. As does IdahoPTV, he sees wilderness as an important
inclusion in the most recent markup.
We also communicated with Wyoming PBS, which accesses public lands
for filming in their state. To them, defining ``news'' and
``journalism'' is also important.
This is not just a public media issue. Access issues are also
encountered by privately owned production companies. Tom and Jennifer
Isenhart own an Idaho video-production company that often has focused
work on public lands over the years. Since they are a for-profit
company, they have followed the rules set by land managers but have had
a hard time getting through to them due to lack of staff at land
management offices. They also see permits as being a form of double
taxation and overregulation. (Attachment 4)
Thank you for allowing us to submit background and comments as you
consider the FILM Act. We support the markup to S. 1616. We appreciate
your efforts and the efforts of the House Natural Resources Committee.
Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions.
*****
Attachment 1
Idaho Public Television
Examples of Public Access Issues
Bill Manny-Executive Producer, IdahoPTV
March 23, 2023
Following the conflicts of 2014 and Chief Tidwell's directive, we
operated largely without difficulty on public lands in Idaho. We often
interviewed Forest Service, BLM and NPS officials on those lands with
no requirement--or even mention--of having to obtain permits. It felt
to us as if the agencies had embraced the spirit of the Tidwell
guidelines.
But in recent years we have encountered an increase in friction over
permits and access to federal lands. We recently had a forest PIO tell
us that, in her opinion, we had gathered enough footage in previous
decades, and that we should use alternative methods (and people) to
gather video. And the friction is coming from both federal agencies as
well as a new source: A proposed City of Boise film-regulation
ordinance, which was halted after widespread protests about its onerous
provisions and overreaching scope.
Here are recent examples documented by IdahoPTV over access to federal
lands:
In winter 2021, Idaho PTV's program Outdoor Idaho wanted
to spend the year shooting video for a program about
Idaho's Bitterroot Mountains. The producer of the program
reached out to a U.S. Forest Service representative with
the Lochsa/Powell/Moose Creek Ranger District on the
recommendation of a local Nordic club, to get more
information about Lolo Pass. The USFS employee asked for
information about the production and said IdahoPTV would
need to apply for a filming permit. In response, the
producer sent over the 2014 memorandum by former USFS Chief
Tom Tidwell that says non-commercial, informational and
news organizations can film in national forests without a
permit. The USFS employee told the producer over a phone
call that the memorandum was dated and no longer applied.
The producer filled out a filming application; many of the
possible locations were undecided and would be weather-
dependent, so the producer left dates and location blank.
The USFS employee said dates and locations were required.
The producer sent a new application with estimated dates
and locations. The USFS employee responded with suggestions
of her own ideas as to where Outdoor Idaho should and
should not shoot video. She also recommended Outdoor Idaho
use footage gathered as far back as 1995, which she said
was adequate for the purposes. In another email, she
suggested Outdoor Idaho ask a group of trail volunteers to
shoot video on their phones instead of Outdoor Idaho's two-
person team shooting their own video in the forest. That
project got delayed, and our crews worked directly with
civilians to document life in the Bitterroots.
In July 2022, an Outdoor Idaho crew encountered a Forest
Service law enforcement official in the backcountry of the
Bitterroot National Forest asking if the crew had a permit
to be filming. The officer had heard our drone flying at
Baker Lake and had come to inquire. Our staff explained
that we don't need a permit for our work, drone or
otherwise, based on the Tidwell memorandum. We also
explained that we were careful to fly the drone OUTSIDE the
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area boundary, as we always do
when filming with drones near wilderness areas. The
incident was satisfactorily resolved, but emblematic of the
questions/issues we encounter.
In September 2022 the Bureau of Reclamation required our
team to obtain a permit to film a scientist who was
researching fossils on the lakeshore of American Falls
Reservoir. Our crew would not be digging, but simply
filming the scientist who already had permission to do his
research. The agency did not accept the rationale of the
Tidwell USFS guidance, despite the fact that BuRec's stated
policy says ``News media do not require a permit.'' We were
told we did not qualify as ``news media'' and that all
filming required a permit. Idaho Public Television
requested and received the endorsement of the Idaho Press
Club that our staffers are, in fact, legitimate and
recognized journalists and newsgatherers, and that our
activities should not be subject to a permit. As the date
for the interview neared, Idaho Public Television agreed to
apply for the permit, stipulating that we still believed it
was not required to film on public land. The nine-page,
one-day license was expeditiously approved by courteous
BuRec officials, and the fees waived, three days before the
interview. But as it stands today, the agency maintains
that it can require us to obtain a permit before we do any
of our First Amendment-protected work on Bureau of
Reclamation lands.
In December 2022, IDPTV's Outdoor Idaho was preparing to
shoot a winter bike race near Island Park, Idaho. The race
organizer told an employee from the Caribou-Targhee
National Forest that a film crew was coming. The USFS
employee told the race organizer that IdahoPTV would need a
film permit. When the Outdoor Idaho producer reached out to
the USFS employee directly, he again said a film permit
would be needed. The producer forwarded the USFS employee
the memorandum from former USFS Chief Tidwell. The USFS
employee said in that case, no permit would be required.
These incidents illustrate the random and unpredictable patchwork of
treatment our work gets from Idaho federal land managers. These may
seem like minor inconveniences in the larger world of resource
management challenges, and it is true our producers and videographers
usually find a workable arrangement when conflicts arise. It is also
true that the vast majority of agency personnel are professional,
accommodating and well-meaning; we do not want to jeopardize that good
relationship or demonize hard-working agency officials. But we do
encounter enough delays and obstacles to our project timelines that we
are seriously concerned about this trend. And what happens when we
encounter agency personnel who are not well-meaning or who don't like
our project or personnel? How do unestablished journalists and
documentarians fare if they do not have Outdoor Idaho's and IDPTV's
connections, 50-year track record and credibility? Predicating access
to federal lands on a producer's charm and a federal employee's good
will is not a sufficient way to guarantee First Amendment right.
In its most simple form, we are asking that we be allowed to work
unimpeded on public lands that are open to the general public. If we
have no impact, no permit required. Simple for all concerned. Our crews
are typically two or three people, and we have no more effect on the
public land than does a forest hiking trio or a family on a lakeside
picnic.
The patchwork of permission and permits presents a practical difficulty
in scheduling and arranging filming projects, and subjects our
productions to the caprice of land managers who can smooth the way for
projects they like and delay projects that might cast them in a less-
positive light.
A clear, simple process that is based solely on the actual impact to
the resource would eliminate such barriers and allow the work of
legitimate news-gatherers and documentarians. We need a clear policy
that respects the promise that Congress ``shall make no law . . .
abridging freedom of speech, or of the press.''
*****
Attachment 2
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Attachment 3
This attachment is available for viewing at:
https://current.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Comments-of-Public-
Broadcasters-Commercial-Filming-in-Wilderness-FR-D....pdf
*****
Attachment 4
Statement from Jennifer Isenhart
Principal/Partner, Wide Eye Productions, Boise, Idaho
S. 1616, or the FILM Act is a win-win-win--for the commercial film
industry; for public lands managers; and for the future of
public lands.
My husband and I own documentary and commercial film company based in
Boise, Idaho. We've been working and filming in Idaho for more than 30
years. For decades, we've struggled with a patchwork system of film
permits with various public lands agencies. We have always felt that
the red tape and expense of film permits is double taxation and over
regulation, as small film crews, such as our own, have no greater
impact on public lands than the general public. We often film with 2
and 3 person crews, stay in areas where the public is allowed, and
follow all existing regulations for public use.
Additionally, we regularly witness how difficult it is for many
government agencies to manage film permitting. In fact, we have had
difficulty with several different agencies in even obtaining permits,
because there is no available staff to call us back, particularly
during fire season. In one particular case, we tried for three months
to get a permit to film in one of the national forests in Idaho and
never did receive a call back from that forest. The protocols vary from
agency to agency, and the eventual cost of a permit doesn't even pay
for the staffing time required to administer it.
The FILM Act solves both sides of this issue, for small commercial
filming companies and for public land management agencies. The FILM Act
bars requiring a permit or assessing a fee for certain commercial or
noncommercial photography or content creation on lands administered by
the Departments of the Interior or Agriculture. The content creation
must meet specified requirements, such as taking place in an area where
the public is allowed and not intruding on the experience of others.
But it doesn't open up commercial filming too much. Crews over 10
persons will still require special permits--as they should. Any filming
operation that has a greater impact than the general public, or who
wishes to work in areas not open to the general public--should undergo
a review, planning and approval process with that land management
agency. The FILM Act maintains this requirement for large crews.
In the modern world of Instagram influencers filming at every national
park, mountain view or scenic vista . . . the concept of managing and
permitting every small filming crew is no longer attainable.
Fortunately, the regulations are already in place for the general
public and these small filming crews. This protects our treasured
public lands without over-regulating the people who want to capture and
share these beautiful images--images which will only bolster the love
of and support for these special places. In this way, the Senate FILM
act is also a win for the future of our public lands.
Please vote YES on the S. 1616, the Senate FILM Act. Thank you.
[all]