U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

51–753 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024

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 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman 

DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Paul Gosar, AZ 

Garret Graves, LA 

Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Daniel Webster, FL 

Jenniffer Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n, PR 

Russ Fulcher, ID 

Pete Stauber, MN 

John R. Curtis, UT 

Tom Tiffany, WI 

Jerry Carl, AL 

Matt Rosendale, MT 

Lauren Boebert, CO 

Cliff Bentz, OR 

Jen Kiggans, VA 

Jim Moylan, GU 

Wesley P. Hunt, TX 

Mike Collins, GA 

Anna Paulina Luna, FL 

John Duarte, CA 

Harriet M. Hageman, WY 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Joe Neguse, CO 

Mike Levin, CA 

Katie Porter, CA 

Teresa Leger Ferna ́ndez, NM 

Melanie A. Stansbury, NM 

Mary Sattler Peltola, AK 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY 

Kevin Mullin, CA 

Val T. Hoyle, OR 

Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA 

Seth Magaziner, RI 

Nydia M. Vela ́zquez, NY 

Ed Case, HI 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Susie Lee, NV 

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 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Russ Fulcher, ID 

Pete Stauber, MN 

John R. Curtis, UT 

Cliff Bentz, OR 

Jen Kiggans, VA 

Jim Moylan, GU 

Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio 

Katie Porter, CA 

Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Mike Levin, CA 

Teresa Leger Ferna ́ndez, NM 

Mary Sattler Peltola, AK 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio 
(III) 

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 
Page

IV 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record—Continued 

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 
(1) 

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 
2 

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 

Ferna ́ndez, 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. 
3 

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. 
4 

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 
5 

Development, or SHRED Act of 2023, which I am proud to cosponsor 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:] 
6 

1Outdoor Industry Association, 2022 Outdoor Trends Report (2022). Available at https:// 

outdoorindustry.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2022-Outdoor-Participation-Trends-Report-1.pdf. 2Gwendolyn 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-satelliteaccount-us-andstates-2021. 4The Senate version of America’s Outdoor Recreation Act has been reintroduced in the 118th 

Congress as America’s Outdoor Recreation Act of 2023. 

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

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. 

Our comments on individual bills are provided below. 
7 

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. 
8 

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 longdistance 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. 
9 

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. 

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.’’ 

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. Rau ́l 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 
10 

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 
11 

1Snowsports 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. 2See www.onthesnow.com/united-states/lift-tickets. 

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, crosscountry 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

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. 

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 nonski 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. 
12 

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:] 
13 

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, 
14 

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 noncommercial 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 
15 

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 
16 

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, 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 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, 
17 

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. 
18 

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. 
19 

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 
20 

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 
21 

1 2021 National Visitor Use Monitoring survey. These numbers reflect total benefits (direct, 

indirect, and induced). 

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 parttime jobs, the vast majority of which are in gateway and rural communities.1

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. 
22 

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 
23 

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 
24 

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 longdistance 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 offhighway 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. 
25 

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 
26 

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 
27 

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? 
28 

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 
29 

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 [PittmanRobertson] 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 
30 

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 oneway 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 
31 

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. 
32 

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:] 
33 

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 
34 

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. 
35 

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, 
36 

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 longstanding 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 
37 

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. 
38 

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 
39 

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. 
40 

1DO41 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. 

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 
41 

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. 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. 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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 
42 

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). 
43 

***** 
44 

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 
45 

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 skiersnowboarder 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. 
46 

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. 
47 

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. 
48 

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. 
49 

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 
50 

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 PittmanRobertson 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 
51 

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, PA-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. 
52 

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 
53 

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 Ferna ́ndez, you have 5 minutes. 

Ms. LEGER FERNA ́ NDEZ. 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 FERNA ́ NDEZ. 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 
54 

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 FERNA ́ NDEZ. 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 FERNA ́ NDEZ. 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 
55 

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. 
56 

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 allencompassing 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 
57 

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 
58 

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 
59 

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:] 
60 

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. 
61 

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. 
62 

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 worldrenowned 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. 
63 

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 BLMmanaged 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 
64 

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 multijurisdictional 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 feesetting 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 
65 

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. 
66 

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. 
67 

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 
68 

$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:] 
69 

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 forprofit 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 
70 

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 
71 

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, 
72 

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 
73 

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 evenkeeled 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 . . . 
74 

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. 
75 

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 ebikes, 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, 
76 

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 PittmanRobertson Act, with over $500 million since our founding. 
77 

1https://www.bicycleretailer.com/announcements/2022/09/22/outdoor-participation-growsrecord-levels#.ZB2qky-B1MA 2https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/visitation-numbers.htm 

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. 

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. 
78 

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 longdistance 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 longdistance 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 
79 

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 longdistance 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 
80 

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. 
81 

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 
82 

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 
83 

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 
84 

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. 
85 

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.] 
86 

[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. 
87 

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. 
88 

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 duespaying 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 humanpowered 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 freeflowing 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 
89 

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, <https://www.river-management.org/assets/docs/Library/allocating%20river%20usejan%202009.pdf>. 

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. 

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 
90 

2We 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, <https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/ 

files/CD2D1A1B-1825-4878-B9A3-D61160D978E2>. 3 An example of a trailhead sign illustrating 15 different possible passes and which ones fulfill 

requirements to park at a recreation site: <https://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/River/ 

view/river-detail/2123/gallery/889244>. 

demand and distribute user days accordingly, and providing sufficient appropriations to do this work.2

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

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. 
91 

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. § 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. 
92 

4 16 U.S. Code § 6802(f)(4). 

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. 

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, 
93 

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 metalbased 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 
94 

AMERICAN ALPINE CLUB 

Golden, Colorado 

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman 

Hon. Rau ́l 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 
95 

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 
96 

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. 
97 

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 ArapahoRoosevelt 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. 
98 

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 underrepresented 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, 
99 

1See NPS Director’s Order #41 found at https://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DO_41.pdf. 

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). 

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 
100 

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 awardwinning 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 
101 

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 noncommercial, 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. 
102 

• 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 wellmeaning 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.’’ 

***** 
103 

Attachment 2 
104 

***** 
105 

Attachment 3 

This attachment is available for viewing at: 

https://current.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Comments-of-Public-BroadcastersCommercial-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. 

Æ