```

[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, 
/www.river-management.org/assets/docs/Library/
allocating%20river%20use-jan%202009.pdf>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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, /
www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/CD2D1A1B-1825-4878-B9A3-
D61160D978E2>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: /www.americanwhitewater.org/content/River/
view/river-detail/2123/gallery/889244>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, gbrown@pewtrusts.org

    John Seebach, jseebach@pewtrusts.org

                                 ______
                                 

                  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]
```