Legislative hearing on four bills: • H.R. 6778 (Rep. Beyer), “Parkway Safety and Reinvestment Act” • H.R. 7618 (Rep. Kiggans), “American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act of 2026” • H.R. 7951 (Rep. Valadao), “Long-Term Good Neighbor Authority Act” • H.R. 7979 (Rep. Crank), “Public Lands Access Restoration Act”
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 1
Unfortunately, despite the rich history of these sites, many have been lost over time. A significant portion of Revolutionary War and War of 1812 battles retain no significant lands from the period of battle, and over 20% of Civil War battlefields have been lost altogether. These losses demonstrate the need for this program. This bill will extend the American Battlefield Protection Program for another 7 years and direct the National Park Service to study and identify significant sites associated with the French and Indian War and the Mexican American War. Representative Kiggins' legislation will allow this program to keep American battlefields intact for generations to come, while positioning these landscapes to tell a more complete story of the nation's past.
I wanna thank each of our witnesses for being here today to share your valuable insights with us on these important topics. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance these thoughtful proposals. With that, I yield back, and I will recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Huffman, for an opening statement.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad that today we're considering a host of important bills, including the proposed reauthorization of the American Battlefield Protection Program. This program is an important tool to protect and interpret the physical sites that represent many of the major conflicts that have happened on American soil, including places like Manassas and Gettysburg. I'm glad to see interest in expanding the program to include battlefield sites from the French and Indian War and the Mexican-American War. Certainly, mister chairman, this is the type of work that this committee should be focused on.
And in a normal time, you would just hear me sing the praises of this important program, and leave it at that. But this is not a normal time. I think we have to acknowledge that as we work on funding and supporting these places that help tell the story of America, President Trump is hell bent on rewriting and sanitizing our national history to satisfy some ridiculous MAGA purity test. This is a concerted effort that is attempting to erase the hard truths of our past and replace them with a whitewashed, comfortable partisan narrative that serves no one but Donald Trump's very shrinking diehard base, apparently. I am disheartened to report that this climate of revisionism and administrative overreach has come for our country's military history too.
We're reinstalling confederate monuments, commemorating the history of a losing side, of traitors, of people who fought against our country. We're working to erase indigenous history from sites like the Battle of Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument. And amazingly, this gaslighting at the historic battlefields of this country is now extending to the current war in Iran. The Trump administration has taken us into a reckless war of choice in Iran, upending global energy markets, sending gas prices skyrocketing. And I hear my Republican colleagues, in many cases, refusing to even call it what it is.
I hear sanitized terms like target specific mission or conflict, because apparently they don't wanna tell the American people that they have allowed a president to go to war even though war power is supposed to reside here in the article one branch of government, the Congress. Our president himself uses all kinds of different terms, including excursion. Look, we should tell the American people the truth. We are at war. It may be an illegal war, it may be an incoherent war, but we are at war.
And it's not normal when we lie and gaslight about things like that. One week of war in Iran could fund 10 years of the Great American Outdoors Act. These are much-needed investments to address maintenance of our public lands. Great American Outdoors Act legacy restoration fund gave federal land agencies the resources that they need to protect and maintain America's parks and public lands, with Congress' investment through this fund. It has been a key economic engine for communities all over the country.
17,000 jobs supported by the LRF nationwide. It's paid dividends for local communities and visitors alike, with over 30% of the fund's investments going towards recreation and visitor experience. Promoting visitor safety and improving the overall experience at our national parks and public lands is a critical bipartisan priority. Today, I'm glad we're hearing about a bill from my friend Don Beyer to address safety and maintenance on the George Washington Parkway. It's an important bill that would prevent high-speed crashes on park-administered roads and highways by authorizing reinvestment of collected fees and fines.
That is a win-win. The Great American Outdoors Act was a strong bipartisan effort to invest in public lands. And Congress's responsibility to support our national parks and public lands has not ended, even though the investments have recently expired. Over the past several months, I have had visitors from all over the country come and tell me how important it is for this program to be reauthorized, and this subcommittee talked about the prospect of reauthorizing it all the way back in September. We have not heard much sense, Mr. Chairman.
And I am looking forward to this committee's continued work to reauthorize the LRF. I'm hopeful the majority will commit to making this a bipartisan effort as we move forward. With these bills. Today, though, I urge my colleagues to take all of these considerations into account. Let us do the work this committee is meant to do, like reauthorizing the battlefield program and investing resources to tackle deferred maintenance on public lands, but let's do it with clear eyes about what this administration is actually doing to our public lands, our workforce, our communities, and in too many cases, to the truth.
Speaker 1
I yield back. Thank you for the opening statement from the ranking member. We're now gonna move on to our first panel, which consists of members. I now represent representative Kiggins for five minutes.
Speaker 3
Thank you, mister chairman and ranking member, for holding this important hearing on access, education, and reinvestment in our public lands. I also want to thank Mister David Duncan, president and CEO of the American Battlefield Trust, for being here today and for his continued leadership in preserving our nation's history. As you may know, I have the privilege of representing Virginia's 2nd Congressional District, home to some of the most historically significant landscapes in our country. From revolutionary war sites to the civil war battlefields, Virginia is not just where history was made. It's where it continues to live, teach, and inspire future generations.
That's why I introduced HR 7618, the American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act, alongside my colleagues, Congressman Magaziner of Rhode Island. This bipartisan legislation reauthorizes and strengthens one of the most effective and widely supported preservation programs we have, the American Battlefield Protection Program. This program has a proven track record. It allows willing sellers to partner with state and local governments, as well as nonprofit organizations, to preserve critical battlefield land before it is lost to development. These are not just open spaces.
They are sacred ground. They are places where Americans fought, sacrificed, and in many cases gave their lives for the freedoms we enjoy today. We are also at a critical moment. As we approach America's 200th birthday, this legislation ensures that our nation's most hallowed sites are conserved for generations to come, and that we continue telling the full story of our country's founding and the conflicts that shaped it. In Virginia alone, this program has helped protect thousands of acres of battlefield land.
These preserved sites are not only vital to honoring our history, they are also powerful engines for education, recreation, and local economies. From an educational standpoint, these battlefields serve as outdoor classrooms. They provide students, families, and visitors with a tangible connection to the past that no textbook can replicate. If we fail to preserve these places, we risk losing the ability to fully tell the story of our nation's founding and the sacrifices made to sustain it. From a conservation perspective, these lands often become permanently protected open space, contributing to wildlife habitat, improving water quality, and strengthening environmental resilience.
Preservation and conservation go hand in hand. And from a recreational and economic standpoint, these sites draw millions of visitors each year, supporting small businesses, boosting tourism, and strengthening local communities. In Coastal Virginia and across the Commonwealth, heritage tourism remains a key economic driver. HR 7618 builds on the success of this program by extending its authorization through 2036, increasing flexibility in how grants are used, and expanding its scope to include additional conflicts like the French and Indian war and the Mexican American war, ensuring we tell a more complete story of our nation's military history. I also want to briefly address concerns raised in the testimony regarding the proposed cost share adjustments.
The intent of this provision is to ensure that more communities, especially smaller, locally led preservation groups, can realistically participate. As we've seen in recent years, many interpretation and restoration grants have gone underutilized, not because of a lack of interest, but because the cost of meeting federal requirements can be prohibitive for local partners. By modestly adjusting the cost share and consolidating these grant programs, we are lowering barriers to entry, increasing participation, and ultimately leveraging more, not less, private and local investment and preservation efforts. This approach maintains the integrity of the partnership while ensuring the program works as intended on the ground. Importantly, this bill also maintains existing authorization levels and focuses on improving how funds are used, not increasing overall federal spending, while giving the National Park Service greater flexibility to direct resources where they are most needed.
This legislation is about stewardship. It's about ensuring that future generations can walk these grounds, learn from them, and reflect on the cost of freedom. It is about honoring those who came before us, not just in words, but in action. As a navy veteran, I understand deeply the importance of remembering those who have served and sacrificed. These battlefields are, in many ways, our nation's earliest veterans' memorials.
Preserving them is one of the most meaningful ways we can pay tribute. I'm proud that this effort has long enjoyed bipartisan support, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to advance this important legislation. Thank you for holding this hearing, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, lady, yield. Sign out. Recognize representative Crank for five minutes on HR 79 79.
Speaker 4
Thank you, mister chairman, for holding this hearing on my bill, the Public Lands Access Restoration Act, or PLERA. Under the current closed unless designated open policy, access to trails and roads on our public lands has been significantly reduced for motorized users. When routes are not properly inventoried by the Bureau of Land Management or the US Forest Service, or are not clearly marked, users are forced to assume that these routes are closed even if they've been used for years. Plara restores a more common sense approach by reestablishing the open unless posted closed policy that governed these lands for decades. Designated trails for motorized use, and that's important.
We're only talking here about designated trails for motorized use, which should be presumed open unless federal land managers do the work to mark them as closed. And when they do close them, it should be based on a clear reason that they can justify to the public. That's why the bill clarifies that agencies would still be able to restrict access in certain cases, like resource protection and public safety, but those decisions must be justifiable. Publicly noticed, properly signed, limited in scope, reviewed every five years. Importantly, Pleric creates a process for the public to work with federal land managers to nominate additional roads and trails for motorized access outside of the travel management planning process.
This bill is about establishing a fair and transparent process for motorized users to maintain and expand access on our public lands, while excluding areas like wilderness areas, and it also excludes National Park Service lands from the scope. At the end of the day, our public lands are meant to be enjoyed by all Americans, and sometimes we get caught up in how we personally choose to recreate. But access to the outdoors takes many different forms. Sometimes there is a different form than you or I would like to do, and our policies should reflect that multiuse. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
I look forward to the discussion and to hearing from Mister Hickson from the Trails Preservation Alliance, and working with the administration and my colleagues on this legislation. And I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen yields, and I'll recognize represent Bayer for five minutes on HR 6778.
Speaker 5
Chairman Tiffany and ranking member Huffman, thank you very much for the opportunity to present today. And I really am grateful for holding this very important legislative hearing and inviting me to speak on HR 6778, the Parkway Safety and Reinvestment Act. This bill addresses a very pressing and long-held concern in my district, and perhaps the first or second primary cause of constituent calls. Speeding on the GW Parkway has led to too many tragic accidents and claimed many lives. Motor vehicle collisions are the leading cause of unintentional fatalities in national parks.
Approximately a third of all crashes being the result of speeding. Someone dies in a vehicle crash on National Park Service Road every week, and my district has felt the statistic firsthand. On the night of 01/01/2025, a woman was killed by a drunk driver going the wrong way on the GW Parkway and driving at 80 miles per hour in a 40 miles an hour zone. And this is just one of many similar stories of speeding leading to collisions and fatalities. So lowering the speeds on the parkway is vital to local safety.
Roads to Parklands are often narrow, winding, scenic, and may have more pedestrians, cyclists, and wildlife around. Indeed, wildlife-related crashes happen at twice the national average on parkways, and collisions are harder to avoid the faster you drive. As a result, parkways deliberately have a lower speed limit than what you typically see on a highway. But we need a way to increase compliance with the parkway speed limit, curtail speeding on our parkways, and help keep people safe. As former superintendent knows well, the last I heard there were exactly two park police between Mount Vernon and the crossing, up at Cabin John.
So it's 34 miles with two park police, and most of them, they hang around National Airport, rather than down on the GW Parkway. As a result, we need a way to increase compliance and curtail speeding on our parkways, and speed cameras are an effective way to do that. Studies that compare the number of crashes, injuries, and fatalities on a given road before and after the installation of speed cameras consistently show reductions. A global analysis of 35 traffic studies found that the presence of speed cameras reduced the proportion of vehicle speeding by as much as 65%, the average speed by as much as 15%. And after the installation of speed cameras, some roadways saw the total number of crashes nearly halve, with fatal and serious injuries down by as much as 44 percent.
When cameras are removed or the communities are aware that the cameras have been turned off, speed and collisions frequently go back up. Consequently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration gives speed camera enforcement five out of five stars for effectiveness at reducing crash frequencies, property damage, injuries, and fatalities. The National Park Service has already authorized installing speed cameras on park roads. There's nothing this legislation says you have to do or that you need to do it. But experience tells us that it would certainly be beneficial.
But one of the reasons they're not done is because they are expensive, and the National Park Service currently lacks the authority to retain any funding generated to help outweigh the cost of installation and maintenance. So the reason why so many jurisdictions across America can afford to build, operate, maintain speed cameras is because the revenue they generate is invested back into the cameras. So if the National Park Service were to install speed cameras today, they don't have the money in their own budget to keep them up. So this bill is a simple fix that will allow any funds raised by speed cameras on National Park land to go back to the park where the funds were generated. This is basically reinvesting in this important asset that we have.
And after the initial investment in cameras, this allows the park to cover the cost of all the other maintenance. As my former superintendent friend knows, we constantly had concerns about fallen trees and maintenance. There's a bump on that road that people talk to me about every time I drive down it that hasn't been fixed in decades because the money's not there. So we have crunch budgets. We know that. This doesn't authorize any new authorities beyond revenue potential retention.
The Park Service can authorize speed cameras if they wish. So this bill makes it financially possible. It's not a new conversation. We've been working to address speeding concerns on the GW Parkway for the 11 years I've been in office. But our past efforts have not been enough, and I'm really excited that the committee has decided to have a hearing at least on the potential for bringing this revenue back to our parks.
And I really thank you for the opportunity to be here, and for your attention to this bill. He'll yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields, and I'll recognize represent Valadao for five minutes on HR 7951.
Speaker 6
Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, and all members of the subcommittee for your time today. In California, we've seen firsthand the devastating impacts of wildfires in our communities. Year after year, these fires grow more intense, more destructive, and harder to contain. That's why we need to be proactive rather than reactive when it comes to managing our forests, and the Good Neighbor Authority has been a proven tool to do just that. By allowing the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to partner with state, tribal, and local governments, we've been able to carry out critical restoration projects, reduce hazardous fuels, and strengthen our rural communities.
But one of the biggest challenges we hear from partners on the ground is uncertainty. Ten-year agreements just aren't long enough for the kind of large-scale cross-boundary work that's needed. That's why I introduced the bipartisan long-term Good Neighbor Authority Act with Congressman Panetta to extend these agreements from 10 years to 20 years. This bill is a reasonable step to strengthen collaboration, improve forest management, and better protect our communities from catastrophic wildfires. And I urge all of our members of this committee to support it.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, Yields, we're now gonna move on to our second panel. Let me remind the witnesses that under committee rules, you must limit your oral statement to five minutes, but your entire statement will appear in the hearing record. To begin your testimony, press the on button on the microphone. We use timing lights when you begin. The light will turn green.
At the end of five minutes, the light will turn red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement. First, I'd like to introduce Mister Charles Cuvalier, associate director of visitor and resource protection at the National Park Service. Mister Cuvalier, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the Interior's views on four bills. I respectfully submit our full statements for the record, and will summarize the department's views. HR 6778, the Parkway Safety and Reinvestment Act, would authorize the National Park Service to use automated speed safety cameras on certain park roads and to direct revenue from resulting civil penalties towards the maintenance and construction needs of the NPS unit where the citation is issued. It would also establish a new civil penalty framework for the National Park Service, and require the development of regulations to address penalty tiers, standards of review, and a process for adjudicating civil citations.
The Park Service does not maintain an existing civil violation scheme that can be readily adapted for automated enforcement. The department supports efforts to enhance public safety, improve traffic management, and address road-related infrastructure needs in some of the most heavily visited areas of the National Park System. We note, however, that the initial acquisition, installation, calibration, and maintenance of speed safety cameras would require upfront spending before any revenue from civil penalties becomes available. Additionally, the requirement to provide responsible parties with a notice and an opportunity for a hearing before assessing a civil penalty could require the NPS to spend more money. The main this may divert funding from other important NPS priorities such as road maintenance and negatively impact its ability to properly manage roadways.
Accordingly, the department does not support HR 6778. The department appreciates the committee's efforts to enhance roadway safety and the visitor experience within the National Park System. We look forward to working with the committee and the bill sponsor to accomplish these goals in accordance with the president's budget proposal. HR 7618, the American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act, would modify elements of the American Battlefield Protection Program, direct the National Park Service to complete new studies related to sites associated with the French and Indian War and the Mexican American War, and consolidate ABPP interpretation and restoration grants into a single $2,000,000 per year program. The department supports the bill's proposed extension of the authorization of the Battlefield Exclusion Grant Program from 2028 to 2036.
Extending this authority would ensure continued progress in partnering with state, local, and private entities to preserve nationally significant battlefields. The department, however, does not support increasing the federal cost share from 50% to 75%. The fifty matching requirement has long been a cornerstone of the land and water conservation fund programs, reflecting an equitable partnership between federal and nonfederal entities. Increasing the federal share would alter the long-standing balance and could weaken the shared responsibilities framework that has guided these grants for decades. Lastly, the department does not support the proposed studies in section three.
NPS is currently focusing its resources on addressing other critical needs, including efforts to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog. Undertaking new studies at this time would divert limited resources from higher-priority operational responsibilities. HR 7951, the long term Good Neighbor Authority Act, would clarify eligibility under Good Neighbor Authority for Indian tribes and establish statutory limits on the duration of G and A agreements. The department would welcome an opportunity to work with the bill sponsor in the committee on additional refinements that could further support the effective and efficient implementation of Good Neighbor Authority. The department values its long-standing and productive collaboration with tribal governments and appreciates how the bill would ensure the application of the authority for Indian tribes is clear and consistent.
The department supports these amendments, which could encourage longer term G and A agreements and reduce the administrative burden of renewing short term agreements with long term partners in tribal, state, and county governments. In addition to my risk written testimony today, the department has submitted a statement for the record on the fourth bill under consideration, the Public Lands Access Restoration Act. I would respectfully ask that any questions regarding that bill be submitted for the record, so that the Bureau of Land Management may respond to those in writing. And before closing, I would note that today's peak bloom is in Washington DC. Our cherry blossoms are in full bloom.
We have the mature trees and newly planted trees that represent really the future of the Tidal Basin, and invite you among the thousands of other people that will visit that site this week to get out and enjoy the outdoors here in the city. Mister chairman, this concludes my testimony. I'm happy to answer any questions on these bills you or other members of this subcommittee may have. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Mister Kubelier. I'll now recognize Miss Ellen Schulzeberger, associate deputy chief at the US Forest Service. Miss Schulzeberger, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 8
Great. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chairman Tiffany and members of the subcommittee. My name is Ellen Schulzberger. I'm associate deputy chief for the National Forest System, and I'm responsible for policy management and oversight of the 193,000,000 acres of the National Forest System land spanning from Puerto Rico to Alaska.
The Forest Service manages these acres for many purposes, including timber, grazing, clean water, and recreational opportunities for the American public. I'll provide a brief overview of the bills today and submit my full statement, the bills with forced service equities and submit my full statement for the record. Thank you for the opportunity to present USDA's views on this proposed legislation. For HR 7951, Long Term Good Neighbor Authority Act, our forest give us countless benefits, clean drinking water, forest products, recreation opportunities, and more. And keeping these benefits requires forest management, and no one group can do that alone.
Good Neighbor Authority allows the Forest Service to enter into agreements with states, counties, and tribes to work alongside us in managing forests and grasslands. The long term Good Neighbor Authority Act provides additional flexibility to allow Good Neighbor agreements that carry out authorized rec recreation and restoration services to use a term of up to 20 years. The use of the Good Neighbor Authority is key in our implementation of the president's timber executive order and the secretarial memo on increasing timber production. Production. The forest services national active fire management strategy supports rural economies and forest product industries, reduces the risk of destructive wildfire, and builds capacity through workforce alignment and partnerships.
The Good Neighbor Authority helps us meet these strategy goals. And so far, we are seeing great results. By the '25, we had 540 active Good Neighbor agreements across 39 states, most with our state partners, but many are growing with counties and tribal nations stepping into this work as well. These partnerships are delivering work at scale and removing barriers that slow progress. And thanks to the Explorer Act, the Good Neighbor Authority now extends beyond restoration to include recreation service work.
The ability for counties, tribal nations to harvest federal timber and retain revenue, opening the door to more shared stewardship opportunities across boundaries and land ownerships. USDA supports the bill and anticipates longer-term agreements will encourage industry to make investments that support active forest management, restoration, and recreation. The ability to utilize long-term contracts will increase the agency's ability to facilitate a consistent and increasing supply of wood products. HR 7979 Public Lands Access Restoration Act. This act would establish a presumption that forest service roads and trails would be open to motorized access unless the roads and trails are signed closed.
It requires that official maps be updated within 180 days, and the agency would be required to publish the maps for public comment and review at regular intervals. And finally, the force service would be required to consider proposals submitted by the public for additions to designated motorized road and trail networks and to consider them within ninety days. The department continues the important work of implementing the administration's recreation and conservation vision, which includes a renewed focus on increasing recreation across the national forest system. As outdoor recreation continues to grow, expanding motorized and nonmotorized access, and improving visitor experience is one of our highest priorities. The department supports the goals of the Public Lands Access Restoration Act and will like to work with the sponsoring committee to discuss further implications of the bill.
Chair Tiffany, this concludes my statement, and I look forward to answering any questions that you or other members of the committee have. Thanks so much.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Miss Schulte Barger, for your testimony. I'll now recognize members for 5 minutes. We are going to start with Mister Fulcher from Idaho for your questioning. You have five minutes, sir.
Speaker 10
Thought I hit that. Sorry. We'll try again. Miss Schulzberger, thank you for your input. Question in regard to what you just said in your statement.
I can see how the Good Neighbor Authority agreements and increasing that will certainly help with, say, wood products and timber and whatnot because that's readily understandable? But I think I heard you just say also with water. Did I pick that up correctly?
Speaker 8
A lot of our work does impact and help water quality, and, you know, part of what we do in the forest service and forest do in reality is help protect watersheds and create clean water.
Speaker 10
Okay. Alright. So it's a cleanliness, not an access to or okay. Thank you. When that good neighbor authority program got expanded from states to also tribes and counties, have you seen? I'm from Idaho, and I think we've done as many of those projects as just about any state, if not more.
But we've seen less that have been engaged by tribes and counties. Have you seen tribes and counties engage in that program pretty readily?
Speaker 8
Yes. So, we actually have seen an increase in tribes and counties. And actually, right now, we're having lots of conversations about opportunities. And I can't tell you how many I've had in the past few months at least. But we have increased and, actually, just recently, we signed a shared stewardship agreement with the, oh, shoot.
And it just went out of my head. It's down in Oregon. But we're in the process of signing a good neighbor agreement with them as well. But correct. But we have some early adopters as far as what we're doing with the EXPLORER Act.
The Nez Perce tribe became the first tribe to remove timber using these new authorities, and we continue to have conversations with counties and tribes and looking at where do those ways and especially when we're looking at a landscape, who has roles and responsibilities that can be helpful as we all come together and looking at a holistic approach.
Speaker 10
Okay. Another question that came into my mind is, has there ever been an attempt to try to use good neighbor authority with a grazing project?
Speaker 8
Actually, we are having conversations of what that could look like, and investigating that a little bit further.
Speaker 10
I realize that may land under interior a little bit more, at least an item. Most of the grazing is within interior. But so, yeah, we haven't engaged with any of those yet, but it's looking at possible ways to do that.
Speaker 8
We certainly are looking at, you know, restoration of grasslands and things like that. We might have something that is part of a good neighbor, that is part of grassland restoration. But grazing specifically, I'm not quite sure about that. We can get more information on that.
Speaker 10
In the future, that'd be great. Also, what about legal challenges? Have you had legal challenges to the Goodneighbor projects? I know we do traditional timber projects all the time. What about legal projects?
Speaker 10
I'd just like to know. I guess that's an obstacle with traditional timber harvest. And so if you'd be so kind as to follow-up on that.
Speaker 10
Mister Cavalli, Cuvalier, in your testimony, you discuss that lengthening the good neighbor authority agreements would reduce the administrative burden of renewing short term agreements. Specifically, with those with that burden, what do you mean by the burden and what is being relieved or what will be relieved as a function of these agreements?
Speaker 7
I think the ability to extend 20 years. Basically, there's a conventional norm in which we're kind of renewing these on a three- to five-year cycle, which is essentially repeating that administrative exercise to get to good neighbor agreements. We could take that and more efficiently, effectively use that over a 20 year time span, therefore, not having to renew those agreements at such intervals. And the other value is when we're working with partners in it, that if we have a shorter term agreement and it's off schedule for lack of a better word, that the window of twenty years gives us an ability to work through that whatever the conditions may be on the ground. So twenty years definitely gives us a much more effective and efficient way to manage these agreements.
Speaker 10
Okay. Thank you. And I'll probably follow-up with some more questions. I'm out of time, but I just wanna underscore to both of you. In our state, this Good Neighbor Authority program overall has been just a real tremendous relief valve because of the massive volume of the federal land in our state.
So thank you for working with us on that. Mister chairman, yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen Yields, I now recognize a gentle lady from Washington, Miss Randall, for her question.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanna start by discussing HR 7618, the American Battlefield Protection Program. And, you know, I guess, a jumping-off point, without digging into the particulars of this bill, I'm concerned at the Trump administration's ongoing efforts to whitewash our history. That's why I introduced the Equal Parks Act to ensure we're being accurate in our portrayals of history, the good, the bad, and the ugly, not cherry-picking which pieces of our history we highlight. Because if we don't teach our kids about the mistakes of those who came before us, we are setting them up, as we all know, to repeat history for failure, and dooming them to potentially face those same mistakes.
We've seen several waves of efforts by the Trump administration to censor, to eliminate, or otherwise rewrite signage at monuments. What dictates which flags can be flown, which photos can be hung up. And with 12 federally recognized tribes in my district, I'm particularly concerned by attempts to erase the history and culture of tribal nations as it relates to the National Park Service managed land. Over the last year, we've seen the Trump administration require National Park Service staff to report materials at parks that contain, I use finger quotes here, descriptions, depictions, or other content that inappropriately disparage Americans past or living. And this has led to the erasure of Native American history at MPS units, including the removal of information on forced removals and boarding schools.
Truth about our American history that is hard to face for some people. That is challenging for us to take head on, but it doesn't mean it should be erased. For example, the Trump administration's forced removal of Native American-related signage at the Little Bighorn National Monument, just to choose one. Mister Cuelier, with the 250th anniversary approaching, how does reauthorizing this American battlefield protection program through 2035 help the department tell a more complete story of the American Revolution and the French and Indian War?
Speaker 7
Thank you for your question. I think some of the values of the American Battlefield pro program is really empowering local partners who are able to then protect and interpret the battlefields. It ensures those landscapes are preserved, and more importantly, it doesn't add to the sort of expansion of the federal estate. So through the leveraging of those grants and local stewardship, their local communities are able to state save historic land while keeping, again, that long-term federal ownership and management obligations to a minimum.
Speaker 11
And I think it in a reality in which we are not facing the attacks and erasure of particular parts of our history, stories that are uncomfortable and now being erased. I wouldn't have anything to complain about this policy, but I think ensuring that we are telling the full story of our history is an obligation, particularly as we face this, you know, monumental birthday for our country. We should be looking clear-eyed into our past as we think about what kind of future we wanna build. Staff has also borne the brunt of some administrative decisions over this last year. And I wonder if you can tell me, mister Cuvelier, what percentage of permanent staff have been lost at the National Park Service since 01/20/2024?
Speaker 7
And thank you for the question. I don't have that information with me, but I will be happy to take it back and provide a response.
Speaker 11
Thank you. It's my understanding that since the Trump administration entered office, the National Park Service has lost 24% of its permanent staff, which, you know, causes all sorts of challenges in our parks and equities across the country. I represent the Olympic National Park, and we've lost scientists and park workers who make sure that folks in our parks are safe and also that we are cleaning up after. There are so many reasons that impacting the staffing levels of our national parks is challenging, not the least of which is if we are going to continue expanding interpretive park experiences and telling more stories, incomplete though they may be, about our history, it's an additional burden to put on already decreased staff. So thank you so much for coming and sharing your experience with our committee. And I just want to charge us all to think about the full picture of our national parks, our history, and the people who are managing their parks.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
General Lady yields. General Lady Yields, I now recognize Miss Molloy for five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Miss Scholteberger, I have a couple of questions for you. And the first one is about Congressman Valadao's good neighbor, Bill. Utah and Montana have both entered into twenty-year cooperative forest management agreements with the forest service administratively. And do you have a sense of what is limiting other states from doing the same?
And would this bill help address the gap?
Speaker 8
Yes. So, certainly, the bill addresses the opportunity to go into those twenty year agreements. And I think when this would provide further opportunity to be able to do so, we've had lots of good conversations with those states. And in Montana, we actually have gone into a 20 year good neighbor agreement through a deviation or a waiver through the chief. And so we're looking at what that could look like, as far as other opportunities for states to go into those longer-term agreements.
Speaker 12
Thank you. I can tell you in Utah, we're really excited about this opportunity to have more flexibility in management, to have the state more involved. It's done a lot for morale and trust around the state. So thank you for that. And I hope this bill passes.
I'm looking forward to seeing more states be able to do those long-term agreements. My other question is about my colleague, Mister Crank's public land access restoration bill. Utah has lost an estimated 1,500 trail miles just in a two-year period. And the BLM closed 665 miles of trails in the San Rafael Swell alone. And I know you're not BLM, but how does the forest service view the cumulative impact of closures, closures of that scale in rural communities, and especially in places that have sort of a trail access economy.
It hits them really hard. So how does the Forest Service look at those cumulative impacts when you're making decisions about roads?
Speaker 8
Yes. So that, first of all, you know, increasing access, recreation access is a priority for us in the forest service, and in the administration. As far as looking at those impacts, I mean, that's part of our role, and looking at forest recreation across the system. And, you know, we look forward to talking with the committee and members further about what this act could bring to us as far as recreation access and increasing that for motorized.
Speaker 12
I will tell you, it doesn't always feel like the forest service is trying to increase access. Sometimes there's a lot of road closures and limitations that are going on. Can you speak to how the bill's clear and convincing evidence standard would, I'm choking this cosponsor here. Would interact with the Forest Service's existing closure rules?
Speaker 12
The bill has a clear and convincing evidence standard for closing roads. Could you talk about how that would impact the way the Forest Service currently makes decisions on road closures?
Speaker 8
I gotcha. So we're interested in talking further about the bill and providing technical assistance. But, you know, things that, you know, we would like to think about are some of those pieces as far as the public comment period and making sure that that doesn't impact or provide any implications to emergency services or anything. And then just thinking about timelines when we're looking at the sheer breadth of the forest service roads and trail system.
Speaker 12
Well, I will tell you in a state like Utah where we have such a high percentage of federally managed land, one of the things that helps offset those problems is having access to the public land, being able to be out recreating, and keeping roads and trails open is a big deal in states like mine. So I appreciate your attention to that, and I will yield back.
Speaker 1
The gentlelady from Utah yields, and I now recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Crank, for five minutes.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate Mr. Cuvelier for submitting the Bureau of Land Management statement for the record. I look forward to working with them to make improvements to Clara. But since National Park Service lands are excluded from Clara, I won't have many questions for you. So, thank you.
Miss Scholz of Arter, I appreciate the administration's work and support their work to support the expanding all types of recreation, not just motorized use. The forest service manages over 190,000,000 acres of national forest land and over 160,000 miles of trails, and over 260,000 miles of road. When evaluating the vast network under the Forest Service, what criteria does the agency apply when determining which roads and trails are open to motorized use?
Speaker 8
First and foremost, safety is the number one thing that we're looking at. We need to make sure that our roads and bridges are safe to use. After safety, we think about other things like any management activity that we have considering natural, physical, cultural, social impacts, with those specifics within that local, you know, community or trail system or whatever it is. So we, for example, don't want to have folks writing ATBs through an active timber or something like that. So safety is a critical component.
Speaker 4
Okay. What are some of the challenges the Forest Service faces when you're inventorying roads and trails in travel management plans? Is it possible for you to miss routes when you're doing that?
Speaker 8
You mentioned a lot of miles of roads and trails, and, you know, certainly, there is a lot to capture as we're inventorying and understanding the road system.
Speaker 4
And how does support service evaluate public comments received from motorized user groups when trails or routes are missing? How do you handle that comment from those groups?
Speaker 8
Well, public import input is important. And from all user groups, you know, considering all aspects of a project or an area or a trail or a road, making sure that we have a good understanding of, you know, the impacts or the needs of whatever that community is, be it the motorized or, you know, the community.
Speaker 4
Sure. And I ask that question because in talking with some motorized user groups, they've reported that historic trails and routes have disappeared from inventories, making them just kind of automatically closed to them. One of the reasons we're introducing Plera. I assume the forest service values input from the public and wants that input.
Speaker 8
We absolutely do. And, you know, partner groups, especially those in the motorized trail community, are important, and it is important to understand and work with those communities.
Speaker 4
Great. And, you know, part of Plura, section of Plura, would allow for a public nomination process that would allow for the forest service to take better inventory of historic trails and routes for motorized use and help add new popular trails and routes. And because at the end of the day, the forest service wants to have a more complete inventory of trails and routes that the public uses. Yes? Would you agree with that?
Speaker 8
The we support more, you know, increasing access on forest service lens.
Speaker 4
I appreciate the forest service willingness to work with me on this legislation, as we continue to take in feedback from stakeholders and agencies. Are there potential public-private partnerships or expanded memorandums of understanding that could aid forest service staff in implementing a policy reversal?
Speaker 8
For we work with many motorized groups and work with them through either volunteer or mutual benefit agreements. And we actually just went into a MOU with One Voice, and that's a collaborative Oh, v group and working on, you know, increasing that collaboration and communication and understanding of those needs. So.
Speaker 4
Great. Thank you very much. And, again, look forward to working with both of you on this proposed bill. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mister Beyer, for five minutes.
Speaker 5
Mister chairman, thank you very much. And thank you for allowing me to weigh on. You know, Superintendent Kouvalier, it's wonderful to see you again. I enjoyed the many years we worked together. We had a lot of good wins.
You were a wonderful partner, and we were glad you got promoted, but miss you. And I noticed you know the speeding problems very well on the GW Parkway. And you worked on them with us for years. In fact, this legislation is something that we worked on together, the Parkway Safety and Reinvestment Act. By the way, congratulations on the GW Parkway north of Key Bridge.
It's a delight to drive on now, after all those years. Great investment for you. But I'm disappointed in your testimony. Not disappointed in you, but the testimony confuses me. Let me quote, the department notes that the initial acquisition, installation, calibration, maintenance of speed safety cameras would require upfront spending before entering revenue from civil penalties becomes available.
Completely true. Is there anything in this legislation that requires the department to buy a single speed camera?
Speaker 7
I don't know if there's specific wording to that, but it would take some effort, including commitment of funding to establish a new program.
Speaker 5
Okay. But there's nothing that requires that. We just say that if there ever is a program, all that money would come back to you rather than be lost in the overall federal budget. It says too in your thing that it might require NPS to spend more money to do hearing and a civil penalty. By the way, we know we have speed cameras in DC, and I think it's one tenth of 1% actually ever asked for a hearing.
Most people just pay their $50 or $100. But if you have to spend more, you're spending more to get a lot more money in revenue. So how could that possibly take money away from the investment that you want to do in the property? Your quote-unquote impact the National Park Service's ability to properly manage roadways.
Speaker 7
Any new program would require start-up costs, start-up investment both in terms of the hardware, software, kind of the technology side, the staffing required to support the program. In this case, whatever the civil scheme, if you will, for adjudication of any civil penalties or things like that. That's all startup costs that are not currently reflected in a program or
Speaker 5
budget. Let me also point out that we came here two years ago. We asked the park service for technical assistance, and we never heard back. We worked with legal experts who did the typical legislative trying to minimize the concerns of the Park Service, and we wanted it to be as feasible as possible. But fixing it's gonna be a two-way street.
My staff first reached out to the National Park Service offices of Legislative Affairs in twenty twenty four for feedback, even informal feedback. We called and asked, so we would like to walk through the bill. We sent drafts their way. We checked them multiple times, but we've yet to have even a sentence of technical assistance from the national partners. So what I'd love to know is, will you, since you're against us right now, will you agree to work with us, provide the technical assistance to make this a bill that you can enthusiastically support?
Speaker 7
Thank you, sir, for that concern. As I shared in the testimony, we're willing to work with the committee to ensure we can make Parkway Roadway safer.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields. I have a couple of questions. Associate deputy chief Schulze Barger. This is one of the most famous charts we use in natural resources, and it shows the impact of wildfire and the lack of harvest on wildfire in The United States when we used to have relatively low wildfires compared to what we have now, and we had significantly more harvest. While wildfire has gone up significantly as we have reduced harvest, will the twenty year Good Neighbor Authority help us fix that problem too, make sure that we're harvesting enough wood, in part to reduce those wildfire hazards?
Speaker 8
Thanks for the question, and I'm glad I had my glasses to see your chart. Yes. So the longer term Good Neighbor agreements, I mean, we talked about some of those benefits and where we have been using Good Neighbor already. I mean, we, and just to share some stats, in fiscal year 2025, we sold 317,000,000 board feet under GNA. So, you know, GNA is helping.
And those longer term agreements would allow for all aspects of the project to be completed within a time frame. You know, it takes some time to get those in there. So, it would allow for more time to get the work done. And then it also that longer term, and I think it's been mentioned in some comments, could also encourage industry to make those event investments to see that actual change on the ground like you mentioned.
Speaker 8
Yes. So, I do have some stats on our harvest goals that we had over the past fiscal year. So we actually exceeded our timber targets over fiscal year 25, selling 2,950,000,000 board feet and then offering another 3,000,000,000 board feet.
Speaker 1
Okay. And we can get those statistics from you. Correct? Is there any objection to the presumption of roads access being open, not closed? Is there any concern that you've expressed to the authors of the bill in regards to that presumption?
Speaker 8
We support increasing recreation access, and look forward to working with the committee on technos in providing technical assistance.
Speaker 1
Do you support the presumption that a road is open, that it's presumed to be open, not closed as we've seen in the past?
Speaker 8
We support the ability to increase that recreation access and, you know, look forward to providing some technical assistance and talking through it further with the committee.
Speaker 1
Well, I would say to the author of the bill, I hope you will press forward diligently to accomplish that goal that you want in that bill.
Speaker 1
will. That concludes the questioning for our two witnesses. Thank you very much for joining us here today. 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. Their entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
I'd also like to recommend or remind our witnesses of the timing lights, which will turn red at the end of your five-minute statement, and please remember to turn on your microphone. As with the second panel, I will allow all witnesses to testify before member questioning.
Speaker 1
I'd like to introduce Mister Shawn Thomas, administrator and state forester at the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. Mister Thomas, welcome. You are recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 13
Good afternoon, Chairman Tiffany, members of the Federal Land Subcommittee. It is an honor to appear before you here today. My name is Sean Thomas, and I'm here representing the National Association of State Foresters and the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation on HR 7951, the long term Good Neighbor Authority Act. Thank you to representatives Valadao and Panetta for their leadership on this legislation. The National Association of State Foresters represents the directors of forestry agencies across all 50 states and U.S. territories.
State foresters manage 76,000,000 acres of state-owned forest land and work to improve the health and resilience of federal lands through partnerships like Good Neighbor Authority. As Montana's state forester, I oversee the management of 5,200,000 acres of state trust lands, wildland fire protection across 60,000,000 acres, in coordination with partners on forest management across all ownerships. Good Neighbor Authority has proven to be one of our most effective tools for increasing the pace and scale of forest management. Since its enactment in the 2014 farm bill, over two-thirds of state forestry agencies have utilized G and A. In the Western United States alone, 14 states report over 180 active agreements with the Forest Service.
Cumulatively, this work has led to over 200,000 acres of forest health and fuel reduction treatments. 340 timber sales generating over 870,000,000 board feet, and more than $89,000,000 in net value. Montana is proud to be leading the nation in proactive, results-driven forest management. We are a proven leader in the use of good neighbor authority. To date, we have completed 69 timber sales across more than 26,000 acres, harvesting 169,000,000 board feet with a value of nearly $24,000,000. We then reinvest that revenue into over 140 restoration projects that have treated more than 50,000 acres.
Building on that success, in June 2025, governor Greg Gianforte and Forest Service chief Tom Schultz signed a landmark 20-year shared stewardship agreement, setting a new national standard for cross-boundary forest restoration. Earlier this month, they identified two priority landscapes totaling more than 400,000 acres across the Flathead, Kootenay, and Bitterroot National Forest, which embody true collaboration between state and federal partners. Montana is proving that when we act decisively and work together, we can restore our forests and protect our communities. While the forest services move forward with a 20 year G and A agreement for Montana, enshrining in statute the ability for all states to access long term agreements is critical. Simply put, 10 years is often not long enough.
Forest management is a landscape-scale, long-term commitment. Consider a typical G and A project timeline. Two to three years of planning and field reconnaissance, one to two years of NEPA review, three to five years of on the ground implementation, followed by another three to seven years of post-harvest work that includes slash treatment, prescribed fire, reforestation. That can be a 9 to 17 year window for a single project. And when you include the restoration work that's funded by these timber sale revenues, the timeline extends even further.
We must have long-term assurances for staffing, budgeting, and planning this critical work. Longer-term agreements also provide a road map for state foresters to make durable, fiscally responsible decisions. Placing a 20-year term in statute provides certainty and stability through election cycles and changes across administrations. Forest management requires a sustained and enduring commitment. As the subcommittee considers this legislation, I want to flag several other important issues.
Under current law, the authority for states to retain and reinvest revenue from G and A projects will sunset on 10/01/28. This revenue sustains the on-the-ground capacity to get the work done. Just as we are recognizing 20 year management goals, we must also ensure states can plan how they're going to reach those goals. We urge the subcommittee to repeal the sunset on revenue retention authority. Further, Montana strongly urges the passage of the road fix provision in the Fix Our Forest Act to allow states to use G and A revenue for the road construction, repair, and reconstruction that's essential to implement on-the-ground forest projects.
Without this authority, critical treatment remains out of reach. With it, states can immediately expand access, address resource concerns, and service fully capable partners with the Forest Service in protecting the health and resilience of our national forests. In conclusion, on behalf of NESF and the state of Montana, thank you for the opportunity to testify. We look forward to working with the subcommittee on HR 7951, and any future efforts to ensure good neighbor authority remains a consistent and reliable tool for states, communities, and our nations for us. I am happy to take any questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Thomas. I now recognize Mr. Chad Hickson, executive director of the Trails Preservation Alliance. Mister Hickson, you are recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 14
Chairman Tiffany and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Chad Hickson, and I am the executive director of the Trails Preservation Alliance in Colorado. TPA exists to protect, support, and sustain the future of off-highway motorcycle recreation. We protect trails for everyone, motorized and nonmotorized, and we are committed to a future where riders and land managers work together to maintain a balanced, sustainable network of trails that are open, respected, and enjoyed for generations to come. TPA turns advocacy into action.
Last year, we invested $450,000 to stand up a professional trail crew with the equipment and experienced personnel needed to maintain and reconstruct trails on public lands. Our crew works hand in hand with land managers, many with prior agency experience, to keep trails open, safe, and maintained. In 2025 alone, our three-person crew contributed over 4,000 labor hours across national forest and BLM lands in Colorado and Utah. In our effort to preserve responsible motorized use of public lands, we run into a roadblock. Before 2005, motorized users could assume that a road or trail was open unless it was specifically marked closed.
In 2005, the Forest Service travel management rule reversed that assumption. The BLM followed with a similar policy. Today, roads and trails are considered closed unless posted open. This policy places an unfair burden on the public. In many cases, it's difficult, if not impossible, to know whether a route is legally open.
This is the only part of our transportation system and, arguably, a departure from long-standing public access principles where users must determine for themselves whether a route before them is open. Imagine if your neighborhood streets were managed this way. Worse, under current policy, many popular and historically used routes were never formally acknowledged in agency inventories. When those inventories became the basis for travel management plans, those routes were effectively excluded from analysis, and ultimately closed. In practice, the absence of a route from an inventory has functioned as a de facto closure, regardless of its historic use or on the ground existence.
As a result, even as motorized recreation has grown, access has declined. More users are pushed to fewer trails. That concentration creates strain, and that strain is often used to justify additional closures. Today in Colorado, only 8% of single-track trails are open to motorcycles. These restrictions hurt recreation-dependent communities and eliminate critical access needed for wildfire prevention and response, search and rescue, and energy development.
HR 7979, the Public Lands Access Restoration Act, is a simple but important fix. It would restore the assumption that roads and trails are open unless smartly closed. It allows for emergency closures, ensuring routes are reopened in a reasonable time frame. It also gives the public a path to nominate routes that were left out of the agency inventories. Importantly, it prioritizes proposals that actually improve the system as a whole.
By improving connectivity within designated road and trail networks, protecting natural resources, enhancing access for land management activities, and providing better opportunities for recreation. To be clear, this bill does not legitimize illegal motorized use. It does not open user-created trails. It does not allow cross-country travel. It does not apply to wilderness areas, national parks, or wildlife refuges.
It applies only to roads and trails managed by the Forest Service and BLM that are designated for motorized use. The Public Lands Access Restoration Act supports multiple use, improves land management, and preserves access to public lands for future generations of Americans.
Speaker 1
Mister Hickson. I'll now recognize the honorable Jeffrey C. McKay, chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. Chairman McKay, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 15
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be here with you today. As you mentioned, I'm Jeff McKay, the chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. And I'm here to share some thoughts with you about HR 6778. I've seen firsthand the impacts of speeding on the GW Parkway, which is located in Fairfax County.
Since 2007, there have been more than 20 fatalities on the parkway alone, including one this past New Year's Eve. With nearly 7,000,000 drivers annually, the GW Parkway is the eighth most visited national park site in the country. Our responsibility is shared to protect driver safety, and it is significant. The 2021 National Park Service traffic and safety context-sensitive solutions assessment of the GW Parkway showed significant speeding. For example, in the northbound lanes south of Bellevue Boulevard, 99% of vehicles exceeded the speed limit.
These are not minor violations. Average speeds were 10 to 15 miles per hour above the posted limit, with one quarter of drivers exceeding 20 miles per hour over the posted limit. Excessive speeds can increase both the frequency and severity of crashes. Beginning in 2023, Fairfax County, Virginia, implemented its own photo speed enforcement on other roadways. Our speed camera pilot started with 10 photo speed enforcement cameras in school zones across the county.
Today, we have 20 in school zones and one in a construction zone. I wanna be clear about what our goal was. The goal of the program was to change driver behavior and improve safety for all road users. Vehicle speeds dropped by 15% in the first locations. In a 25 mile an hour zone, that means that the average driver is now going approximately 27 miles per hour rather than 30 miles per hour.
We believe similar results could be achieved on the GW Parkway. Getting drivers to slow down saves lives, prevents crashes, and protects all users of our roadways. Photo enforcement has proven to be an effective tool in achieving these outcomes in Fairfax County, and I know no doubt we'll achieve the same outcomes on the GW Parkway. For these reasons, I am strongly supportive of the legislative solution described in Congressman Byers' Parkway Safety and Reinvestment Act. This bill does not authorize any new speed mitigation technology.
Speed cameras are already authorized for use in Parklands. The purpose of the bill is to permit revenue generated from speeding tickets to be reinvested directly into the operation and maintenance of the speed camera program on the parkway. The goal is simple, reduce speeds, and improve safety. The outcome could be replicated in other national parks that also experience excessive speeding. To be clear, this bill is not a punishment, nor is it intended to place a tax on Parkway users, including thousands of my own constituents, federal employees, and congressional staff who rely on it daily.
Regular users will become aware of camera locations and adjust their behavior accordingly. Clear signage and public awareness will further support compliance and enhance safety. This committee has provided support for the GW Parkway in the past through the Great American Outdoors Act, and we are grateful for that. This bill supports a common goal of ours, the safety of the people who use this national treasure. It is a smart, responsible policy that keeps Americans safe and strengthens the national parks and key transportation corridors.
Thank you for your consideration. I hope to see this important bill passed through this committee soon, and we know that it has the opportunity to save lives. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Chairman McKay. Finally, I'd like to recognize Mr. David Duncan, president of the American Battlefield Trust. Mister Duncan, you are recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you here, about my favorite subjects, saving America's hallowed ground and saving that ground for future generations, and inspiring appreciation for our nation and its remarkable history. I also thank the committee for your steadfast support over the years for battlefield preservation. The trust considers this committee a full partner in our efforts to save our shared history. Because of this committee's support, the trust and our roughly 500,000 members and supporters nationwide have now protected more than 61,500 acres of critically important land at more than 160 battlefields in 25 states.
Land that, but for our efforts, would surely have been developed, destroyed, and denied to future generations. HR 7618 would reauthorize the American Battlefield Protection Program as we've already noted here today, which, in my humble opinion, is one of the most effective, efficient, and bipartisan public-private government programs in existence, while maintaining level funding. This successful partnership has been the primary mechanism for saving threatened historic battlefield land outside, and I really want to stress that word, outside existing national park boundaries. Since its creation, the Battlefield Land Acquisition grants from the program have helped preserve more than 38,000 of those 61,500 acres of hallowed ground from the American Revolutionary War, the war of 1812, and the American Civil War. Put another way, that is more than 50 square miles of preserved, hallowed ground.
The program, which is funded through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, requires, and to comments made earlier, will continue to require a dollar for dollar federal to nonfederal land match for land acquisition. Although on most occasions, the federal dollars are leveraged well beyond that one-to-one requirement. This matching grants formula, again, for land acquisition, which encourages private sector and state investment in battlefield preservation, is the key to its success. In addition to reauthorizing the program, the legislation would also make targeted improvements, as noted, to two smaller additional grant programs managed by ABPP, the Battlefield Interpretation Grant Program and the Battlefield Restoration Grant Program. This bill creates efficiencies by consolidating the two $1,000,000 programs into a single $2,000,000 grant program, simplifying administration, and providing the National Park Service with greater flexibility in awarding those grants.
It also reduces, as has been noted, the nonfederal match of the combined program to 25%, making those grants more accessible to smaller local and regional battlefield nonprofit organizations. Lastly, the bill directs the National Park Service to study battlefields of the French and Indian War and the Mexican-American War to determine whether these early conflicts may be eligible for program grants in the future. To address NPS concerns, much of the background work of these studies has already been completed. America's battlefields are key to understanding who we are as a nation, and how far we have come. Preserved battlefields teach students, lifelong learners, and even our current military leaders about the defining moments in our country's history.
They are living memorials, not just to the soldiers who fought and died there, but to all who have proudly worn the nation's uniform. This year, the nation will observe the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution and the founding of The United States. Americans will visit battlefields and historic sites in record numbers to learn more about the events that led to our independence. Enactment of this legislation will help create an enduring legacy of America's 250th. We continue to look forward to working closely with you as we continue our crucial work to save this hallowed ground.
And if any of you would ever like to tour these amazing places which you have helped to save, please let me know. We will make that happen. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Duncan. We will now open up for questions here from our members, Miss Malloy, from Utah. You get five minutes for questioning.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister Thomas, I'll start with you because you're at the end. I know that the council of western states, foresters, and a lot of your colleagues have been working really hard to shine light on the fact that the good neighbor authorities, timber revenue retention authority still has a sunset on it even though we've had a decade of successful implementation. And with Good Neighbor Authority agreements and cooperative forest management goals now going out 20 years, the ability for state programs to count on revenue is more important than ever. Do you just want to take a second and comment on that?
Well, more than a second, maybe a minute.
Speaker 13
Certainly. Thank you for the question. Yeah. The revenue retention for the state of Montana's G and A program is absolutely critical to its long term sustainable future. We're building a program within our state government to implement these projects on federal land.
We're hiring staff. We're building program budgets around that staff, and the revenue component is important for two things. One, it gets reinvested in the restoration work that we're doing after the fact. We're also using that revenue to pay the staff. So it's really hard to make a plan and to, you know, have people invested in their job and employment with our agency with an uncertainty hanging over their head that the revenue may not be available after that date in a couple of years.
Speaker 12
Yeah. So it's probably going to make states less willing to enter into these agreements. Right?
Speaker 13
It certainly isn't helping states be excited about getting into the agreements. That uncertainty is a really important thing for states.
Speaker 12
Yeah. I think you're right. And I think it's something that we should encourage, having states entering into these good neighbor agreements. It just makes sense that we'd extend the revenue sharing. So thank you for that.
Mister Hickson, you talked about the uncertainty regarding the routes. I agree with you. I see this all over on public lands where the management gets more and more complicated, and the average person doesn't know where they can be or where they can't be, and where they need a permit, where they're allowed to go. And it just makes it harder to recreate and makes it so that people who enjoy being out on public lands can get themselves in trouble when they have no intent to break any of the rules. In your testimony, you described 1,500 miles lost in Utah over two years, including routes in San Rafael Swell that were dropped from inventories.
Man, it's been a long day. Dropped from inventories, rather than being formally closed. Can you talk about how this bill would help address those existing gaps?
Speaker 14
Yes. Thank you. Your great state is my second home on two wheels, so I appreciate that question.
Speaker 14
Yeah. Yeah. So I think that what we would like to see, that that's the critical component of the inventory or the nomination piece of the bill is that, you know, we can go back to something like the San Rafael swell where the actual pro access alternative that was proposed was really more like the no action alternative. And all these routes just failed to be analyzed or even be considered to be opened. So with a nomination process in Plura, that is timely.
The public can go back and say, hey. We had these other routes. They weren't analysed. We'd like you to take another look at these routes. Whether it's one by one or collectively, I guess, it is open for conversation.
Speaker 12
Yeah. And when I say we have areas in the state that are really dependent on outdoor recreation tourism, it's nice to have a witness here that is witnessing to that very thing by claiming it to be a second home on wheels. So thank you, and I will yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentle lady yields back. I now recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mister Crank, for questioning.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mister Hickson, thank you. When we first visited the office, he told me that in Colorado, an outdoor recreation hub, of course, motorized users only had access to 8% of the trails, and I told them we had to fix that. So I appreciate you lending your expertise to us and working with me to help draft, Clara. Grateful to you also for flying out here and agreeing to testify.
Can you explain the confusion that motorized users experience when trying to understand if a trail or road is open or closed to motorized use?
Speaker 14
Yes. So, you know, let's go to San Rafael swell, for example. There's roughly 600 miles of routes that were existing on the ground that were not analyzed, and they're still there on the ground. Imagine entering a designated route that goes through, and you come to a four-way intersection, and two of those intersections don't have markers on them. Or all three because it's the middle of a route, perhaps.
And so all of a sudden, you know, you're a user and you're like, well, which way am I supposed to go? Which way is the designated route?
Speaker 4
And you're trying to be you're trying to abide by the rules and the law, so you don't know. Right. And if you have to turn around to abide by that, if
Speaker 14
You and if you go the wrong way, then you're subject to penalties. Sure. So that that's kind of what's happened over the course of all of these travel management rules and the mapping and all the other infrastructure not keeping up with it.
Speaker 14
I do. I think when a place has a lot of, you know, access that becomes limited, less users go there, less people go there. On the contrary, I think when you create systems that people want to visit, they visit them. And, you know, we're somewhat seeing that even with this diminishing access where we have groups that want to come to Colorado, for example, and they're gonna, you know, we get people from multiple states that come to recreate in Colorado, motorized recreation, whatever, all types of recreation. But Taylor Park is an area that a lot of the use has been concentrated in, and so a lot of that focus goes there.
You know, and other areas are falling behind because the systems just don't create the desired experience those people are looking for to come, spend multiple days in a spot, and do their recreation. They're just kind of piecemealed. So they don't get visited in those towns, don't get people eating at their restaurants. They don't get people buying gas, etc.
Speaker 4
Yeah. What work does TPA do to help federal land managers maintain trails?
Speaker 14
The best example is our trail crew. You know, that was a $450,000 investment on our part last year. That was a crew that had disbanded from The US Forest Service, and we picked, we actually hired some of the same people to stand it back up and get them back to work, free to the agencies. Works all over the state and works with local clubs to partner on different projects. And it's almost all maintenance.
It's almost all way in the backcountry, where it's very difficult to access. So our crew is more like a hotshot, kinda like a hotshot fire crew. They can get into remote areas and do complicated work.
Speaker 4
Yeah. I'm not as adventurous as you on some of these things, but I'm a hunter. What benefits does expanded motorized access provide for hunters in your view?
Speaker 14
Well, I have hunt. I don't hunt anymore. I grew up hunting, and I know that we spent a lot of time on foot. And when we did get something, then the retrieval part was always the challenge. And so I think having good access really is helpful for retrieval, especially. But also just, you know, just getting to places that you go to hunt.
Mhmm. It is helpful now.
Speaker 4
There's also a lot of grandpas and grandmas who'd like to take their grandkids out to hunt, but they maybe physically can't get there. So to be able to have a motorized, particularly to get out an elk. Yeah. Which, if you've never done that, is not the easiest thing in the world to do. So especially if you're 73 years old or whatever.
Speaker 14
Yeah. Yeah. Whether it's done by horseback or vehicle, it's always nice to carry it on something besides your own back.
Speaker 4
That's right. I have to have a knee replaced because there's been too many like taken out on my back. So thank you very much. And thanks again for coming out to testify. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, yields. I now recognize the gentleman from Rhode Island for his questioning for 5 minutes.
Speaker 17
Thank you very much. So I'm here today not just as a member of the National Resources Committee, also as the co-chair of the Congressional Battlefield Caucus along with Representative Kiggins. And I want to offer my support and my advocacy for the American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act of 2024. I also wanna thank and recognize Mister Duncan for your leadership and your partnership. Thank you for everything that you do to preserve our nation's sacred spaces.
America's battlefields are a direct link to our history, and everyone tells a unique but important story. And especially in this year, the 250th of our nation, we must redouble our efforts to protect and to safeguard the lands on which we won our freedom. Battlefields are more than just physical spaces. I became interested in this caucus and this cause because, you know, I remember as a young person when my parents took me to civil war and revolutionary war battlefields, and it's formative for a young person in particular to be reminded of the courage and the sacrifice that so many people who came before us made, not just for their neighbors and their family and their friends, but for the idea of America, for the idea of a representative democracy that is built on freedom. And we need to continue to educate and inspire the current generation and future generations to come.
So this legislation will reauthorize the American Battlefield Protection Program through 2035. I believe we had another year left, it's good to get ahead of it, and, you know, be proactive. It also authorizes $20,000,000 each fiscal year to protect funding through the Department of Interior for this program, and reduces the nonfederal match of grants down to 25%, which will make it easier for more communities, you know, particularly in economically stressed areas of the country, to participate. So I'm grateful to, again, everyone at the trust, to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for supporting this legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
I don't think we're gonna have a lot of trouble, but you can never take anything for granted. And, you know, to all Americans who put the time and the energy and their own labor into preserving our nation's sacred spaces. Thank you. It's always been important, and it continues to be. So with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields. I now recognize the gentleman from Michigan for his questioning for five minutes.
Speaker 9
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you to the panel for being here. Appreciate the opportunity, mister chairman, to wave on this committee, and to speak to the panel about some things I'm concerned with. As a lifelong motorcyclist and outdoor enthusiast, and chairman of the congressional motorcycle caucus, I'm pleased to see the subcommittee considering legislation that expands motorized access to our nation's public lands. As has been described today, we've seen a precipitous decline in the number of roads and trails available for motorized recreation since the 2005 travel management rule. Let me be clear.
As a motorcyclist, I want to ensure we are good stewards of the land resources, and that we have safe trails to ride. And the trails are open and indeed safe, for all who'd use those trails. However, what we've seen with the travel management rule is an unfair restriction to the lands and trails that should be open to all of us, including those who wish to enjoy our lands on a motorcycle or an ATV. Secretary Bergham's secretarial order 3447, which established an open unless closed policy for hunting and fishing, is a common sense approach that supports access and enhances, I believe, opportunities. This approach should also be applied to excess trails for motorcycle, motorized users.
Mister Hickson, could you share more about how the travel management rule has limited access to trails, and how shifting to an open unless posted closed model would restore access to federal lands?
Speaker 14
Yes. Thank you for the question. You know, when we started into travel management, the routes on the ground were all they were ample. There were, you know, old logging roads or, you know, just a plethora of roads out on the landscape. And as we moved into the travel management planning, the goal was to protect access, protect resources, and protect also the recreation experience.
But I think what's happened is that it's gone too far. And we have lost so much access that now we're having a counter effect by concentrating use onto the resource and causing more damage by putting people in fewer places and then causing safety concerns with just too much use on certain areas. And so with opening up pleura, open unless posted close, and this route nomination allows us to go back and revisit a lot of those decisions on a case by case basis without going back through travel management or a resource management plan to do so. Yeah. Too much, timely fashion.
Speaker 9
Much of a good thing. Sometimes it is too much. Yeah. And so this would assist that. Let me ask you how this bill takes safety concerns into account when giving the secretary the authority to close a trail to motorize users.
Speaker 9
How does this bill take safety concerns into account when giving the secretary authority to close trails to motorized users?
Speaker 14
I'm I guess, I would see the safety concerns being that, well, if we're concentrating too many users into certain areas and by dispersing that use, we're saving the resource by, you know, less concentration onto the actual trail. And then users get dispersed, so there's less chance of head ons. There's less chance of user conflicts. Those were the types of safety concerns.
Speaker 9
Yeah. Broadening it. Yeah. Yeah. How will the legislation help protect natural resources and prevent damage?
I think you answered it already.
Speaker 14
In the same way. Yeah. In the same way. Just dispersing the use and instead of over concentrating into areas which often, you know, get cited for reasons to close more trails, dispersing it, spreading it out often keeps trails sustained and on their own. I mean, in, you know, in the mountains, for example, it snows every winter.
The trails get a break. You know, a lot of times, they somewhat repair themselves.
Speaker 9
Yeah. I just wanted to reiterate that. So thank you, and thank you to representative Crank for putting forward this legislation. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentleman yields. And I'll recognize the gentleman from Montana for his questioning.
Speaker 18
Well, thank you, chairman Tiffany, and thank you for allowing me to weigh in on this committee. Really appreciate it. Appreciate the work you're doing here. And, Mister Thomas, great to see you. You know, I really appreciated all the work when I was a land commissioner on the Montana Board of Land Commissioners.
All the work that you did shows us what was going on in Montana and how we're dealing with our timber stands and our public lands. And I really appreciate seeing that up close and personal with you and appreciate the work you've done there. And, also, going to your testimony today, it demonstrates, you know, how states like Montana are eager and more than capable of carrying out vital management activities, including selective thinning, prescribed burns, and hazardous tree removal. And since the initial codification of Good Neighbor Authority in the 2014 Farm Bill, my question for you is how Montana's Department of Natural Resources and Conservation or DNRC expanded the scope of the forestry operations in order to accommodate expanded jurisdiction over federal lands?
Speaker 13
Congressman, thank you for the question. Good to see you as well. So since the initiation of Good Neighbor Authority, Montana has really taken this to heart as a program and a way to help expand the capacity to do more work on federal land. We have a forest health and wildfire crisis in our state that is very significant. We have a state forest action plan that we have used as the way to prioritize what work and where to do that work.
And we've adhered to that in terms of how we've looked at expanding the opportunities to make more acres get treated. To that end, with the help of the Montana legislature and other partners, we've actually hired an entire program of people that are doing Good Neighbor Authority work. We have now an excess of 30 and growing state-dedicated employees for the Good Neighbor Authority program.
Speaker 18
Thank you. So how do timber sales and revenue-sharing agreements support DNRC's cooperation with the US Forest Service?
Speaker 13
So those revenue sharing agreements really are twofold. One, that revenue gets retained by the state. We can retain revenues and then reinvest them in doing work on the ground. So any timber sales that generate commercial revenue, the revenue gets put back into other activities. Two, that revenue is used much like with the state trust lands program in Montana.
That revenue is used to fund those positions that are doing the work.
Speaker 18
Thank you. At the beginning of this month, the state of Montana finalized the first of its kind twenty year good neighbor authority agreements for the Flathead, Kootenay, and Bitterroot National Forests. This extended twenty year timeline directly matches the one that was set by my colleague, rep representative Valadao's legislation. So, at an operational level, can you elaborate on the impacts of this expanded timeline? And second part of that is how will these projects in Northwest Montana differ from previous Good Neighbor Authority agreements?
Speaker 13
So what the twenty year agreement allows us to do is to anchor within a couple of different landscapes in the state to do the long-term planning work. These projects often take many years from the first inception till the follow-up treatments are all completed. So having that long term window is really critical to be able to put that all together. Right. Having a landscape identified allows us to focus planning and effort in one specific area within the state.
That gives our foresters and people that are working on these projects some sort of ownership in the area that they're working in and an understanding of the land that they're managing, which is really critical in the land management business. The more you understand about the land that you're working on, the better job you can do ultimately.
Speaker 18
Right. So BLM also offers the opportunity for states to enter into Good Neighbor Authority agreements. So what are the key differences between BLM and the US Forest Service's Good Neighbor Authority programs?
Speaker 13
Certainly. Thanks for that. So Montana's done Good Neighbor Authority with both the Forest Service and the BLM. We've done much more of that with the Forest Service. When G and A, authority came into being, we sat down in Montana with the regional Forester and Region one, and we developed a project our product from scratch that says how we're gonna do these projects.
With the BLM, they've taken more of a G and A program or a G and A project is more like an existing grant. So it's a shorter time frame, three to five year windows, and it's really treated as though each project is its own grant. So it's got less flexibility. It's got less long-term durability than what we've done with the forest service, which has allowed us to have those longer timelines and more flexibility.
Speaker 18
Well, thank you, and thank you for those answers. Thank you for being here. Thank you to all the witnesses for being here. The Good Neighbor Authority has been incredibly successful in Montana, and I greatly appreciate you showing up and testifying before us today. That, Mr. Chair, I yield.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen yields, and I'll recognize the gentleman from Virginia for round two of his questioning.
Speaker 5
Mister chairman, thank you very much, and thank all of you for coming and testifying. Mister McKay, chairman McKay, I especially appreciate your testimony today. I understand that you were born and lived almost your entire life within minutes of the GW Parkway. About as local a guy as you get. Right?
That is accurate. I read this recently. You confirm it because, you know, we only represent about 800,000 people that the county represents 1,300,000 people is the safest county of its size in America.
Speaker 15
Yeah. I do represent nearly 1,300,000 people. And according to the Major City Chiefs Association, not my opinion, professional opinion, we are the safest jurisdiction of our size in the United States of America.
Speaker 5
Amazing. Since you're so close, I know you traveled that parkway often, but you also instituted a speed safety camera on Fairfax County schools. Can you tell us about that and how what has that done for the safety of our kids?
Speaker 15
Yeah. So, when we piloted this, we got authorizing legislation from the Commonwealth of Virginia to do speed cameras in school zones and in construction work zones. And we piloted this just to see what happened with driving behavior. And the results, and they're in my testimony, but the results have been stunning. We entered into this with one intention, and that was to change people's behavior, not to collect revenue, but to change people's behavior in a very positive way.
And across the board, we have seen significant reductions in speed in those zones. And this program has been in existence now for a couple of years, and the data continues to show that year-over-year continued reductions. And I wanna be clear about this too, that we publicize where these cameras are. We calibrate them in school zones to only operate within a few minutes of the school zone time period when kids are coming to school and kids are going out. And so these are not running, you know, twenty-four seven.
They're only designed to run when the schools are in session. And we have seen measurable reductions by percentage in average speeds in those areas, including in roads very similar to the GW Parkway where, you know, the posted speed on these roads is not 25 when school's not in session. In some cases, it's 40 or 45 miles an hour. And even in those high speed corridors, in some cases, six lane divided residential roadways where it's very easy to speed, we have seen measurable reductions in speed during those periods of time.
Speaker 5
Yeah. I mentioned earlier that the superintendent told me only two park police officers for the entire stretch, 34 some miles. You'd mentioned that you felt that the federal government had abandoned its enforcement responsibilities on the parkway. And as you know, there's legislation to have the Fairfax County police do it, which they are reluctant to. How does it change the math for Fairfax County when they whether to step in on enforcement?
Speaker 15
It changes the math dramatically. I mean, frankly, we'd love to have a police officer positioned at every school zone in the county, but the reality on the ground is that's impossible. And so this has been a huge force multiplier to be able to, again, change behavior in areas without the presence of a police officer. And it allows us to deploy those officers to more important responsibilities during those periods of time. And so it has been tremendously helpful from that standpoint and has also been cost neutral to our Fairfax County Police Department because, again, we were not in this for the revenue, but the cost of this program has been completely offset by the cost of the violations.
And we have to, as a county in Virginia, abide by the rules set forth in the code of Virginia in terms of how the collections occur, who collects them, when we collect them, and how we collect them. And that requires some personnel from the police department. But even with that cost, this has turned out to be something that does not end up affecting the county's general fund in a negative way. And in the positive way, all of that revenue is put back into pedestrian safety specifically and projects around the county to enhance driver and pedestrian safety. And so the program has also funded a lot of other improvements across the county that, without a doubt, save lives.
Speaker 1
Mister chairman, I yield back. Gentlemen, yield. So I'm gonna ask a couple of questions if you will, panelists, to close this out. Mister Thomas, I want to make sure I heard you correctly earlier. Did you say that the US Forest Service's handling of the Good Neighbor Authority is better than the Bureau of Land Management in your experience?
Mister chairman, thank.
Speaker 13
Thank you for the question. Yes. In our state, the for service process that we sort of invented from scratch to fit Good Neighbor Authority is more flexible and better program for the state of Montana.
Speaker 1
So the Fix Our Force Act has a nexus with the Good Neighbor Authority. And what would you say to the United States Senate in regard to Fix Our Force? Should they get that done, and why is it so important for us to get it done?
Speaker 13
Mister chairman, yes. The Fix Our Forest Act is an important piece of legislation for a number of reasons that pertain to active forest management and the Good Neighbor Authority that states are implementing. I think one of the most important aspects is what I mentioned in my testimony, that ability to have G and A revenues used to build new roads, which we're currently forbidden from doing. And it's not that we wanna build a lot of new road all throughout the forest. This is really about restoration and fixing legacy problems that exist out in the landscape.
We will often have a project that's approved, and a road will be constructed. It's just getting constructed under a hard money sort of a road package put out for contract by the US Forest Service, which adds a lot of time to the process, and they have to have the funding to actually get that done. If states could do that, we would be able to do it as part of the G and A timber sale project itself, which would be efficient, effective, both in terms of cost and time.
Speaker 1
Would it be safe to say that in order to complete these projects, you need access to harvest timber?
Speaker 13
Mister chairman, yes, certainly. The access to doing the project is imperative. And the access I would add has been analyzed and follows all of the rules and regulations that the Forest Service has to operate under. These roads would be designed and implemented, subject to the NEPA regulations and the public review process. It's just a mechanism of how it's actually getting constructed once it's approved, that is called into question with Good Neighbor Authority currently.
Speaker 1
Mister Hickson, when was there the reversal of the open unless designated closed approach?
Speaker 14
In 2005, the Forest Service Travel Management rule, and then subsequently the BLM, followed a similar policy.
Speaker 1
And this led to a significant amount of closures. Correct? Yes. Will we be able to reverse the damage that's been done over the last 20 years, the harm that has been done in denying people access if we go back to an open unless designated closed approach?
Speaker 14
No. Not just like that. The travel management rules and all the resource management plans that have been put into place would still be there, but it would force the current situation of putting the onus back on the agency to mark the trails that aren't part of the designated system.
Speaker 1
Would it also force when, you see renewals of master plans, those type of things, would it help with those to get that designation back in there open?
Speaker 14
I would hope that it would do so without those travel management plans and resource management plans with the nomination process.
Speaker 1
So there's another way to accomplish it, rather than just having to wait?
Speaker 14
Right. Like, so user that that's part of the nomination language is so that users could come back and say, hey. These routes were not analyzed.
Speaker 1
So this is gonna take managers, forest service managers that are going to make sure that this happens. I mean, it's going to take an active approach by federal personnel to accomplish this. Is that accurate?
Speaker 1
Mister Thomas, if there is just one final question. If there's one thing that you could change in terms of your relationship with the federal government, state and federal, that the federal government would change. And, it does not need to be restricted to what we're talking about today. What's the one thing you'd really like to see the federal government change in terms of their relationship and how they work with you at the state?
Speaker 13
Mister chairman, I think the one thing that would really help is this continuation of having true partnerships like the Good Neighbor Authority. Allowing states to have a seat at the table is just critical to being able to incorporate the local concerns that we have in our state. If they had the ability to figure out an answer to the ongoing litigation problem we have in Region 1 in Montana, that would be a nice thing to accomplish as well.
Speaker 1
So in other words, coordination where the federal government actually treats you as an equal at the state and local level, that would be very helpful?
Speaker 13
Mister chairman, yes. The states would love to be treated equally, as partners. Yeah. For sure. Yeah.
Speaker 1
And the litigation part of it. That's a very good, I don't know which one in my book would be one or two. Anyhow, I wanna thank all of you for joining us today as witnesses and those of you that traveled from near and far, and we appreciate that you're here today. Members of the subcommittee may have some additional questions for our witnesses today, and we'll ask that you respond to those in writing. Under committee rule three, members of the subcommittee must submit questions to the subcommittee clerk by 5 PM on Tuesday, 03/31/2026.
The hearing record will be held open for 10 business days for those responses. If there is no further business, without objection, the subcommittee on federal lands is adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.