The Star‑Spangled Summit Act requires the Secretary of Agriculture (acting through the Forest Service) to issue a 10‑year special use permit for placing and maintaining a flagpole bearing the U.S. flag at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point, Utah, within 180 days of enactment. The bill gives a named individual—Robert S.
Collins of Provo, Utah—the first right to that permit and, if he declines, establishes a priority scheme for local residents, nonprofits, and volunteer organizations operating in Utah County.
Beyond who receives the permit, the bill removes routine procedural constraints: it exempts the permit from land use fees, forbids holders from selling referral rights, and excludes issuance, renewal, and administration of the permit from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Those mechanics compress the administrative timeline, limit public environmental review, and lock in a long‑term, site‑specific use on National Forest lands—matters that matter to land managers, local stakeholders, and anyone tracking precedents for targeted public‑land authorizations.
At a Glance
What It Does
Directs the Forest Service to issue a specific 10‑year special use permit for a U.S. flagpole at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point and to renew or reissue subsequent permits on a defined schedule; authorizes site access and allows the Secretary to set care and maintenance conditions. The bill exempts the permit process from NEPA and waives land use fees.
Who It Affects
The Forest Service (administration and enforcement), the named individual Robert S. Collins and other local applicants (Utah County residents, nonprofits, and volunteer groups), and visitors to Kyhv Peak whose access or resource conditions may be altered by permitted activities.
Why It Matters
It creates a narrow, place‑based authorization that bypasses standard environmental review and fee policy, establishing precedent for congressional direction of Forest Service permitting and privileging local actors—an actionable model other sponsors could replicate for single‑site uses on public lands.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates an unmistakably narrow entitlement: the Secretary of Agriculture must issue a 10‑year special use permit for a flagpole at a precisely described point on Kyhv Peak in the Uinta National Forest (the bill even lists latitude and longitude). That permit must be issued within 180 days of enactment and can be granted directly to a specific named resident; if that person declines, the Forest Service follows a statutorily prescribed priority that favors prior permit holders, people identified by those holders, and then other qualified local applicants.
A "qualified person" here is limited to an individual who lives in Utah County, or a nonprofit or volunteer organization that operates in the county, and that has hands‑on experience with placing or maintaining flagpoles (plus any additional experience the Secretary requires). The Secretary keeps discretion over what additional qualifications matter and over any terms and conditions attached to the permit to protect safety and resources, but the statute expressly forbids the agency from charging land use fees for this authorization.Procedurally, two features shorten and constrain ordinary Forest Service practice.
First, the bill mandates notice of permit availability only via the Forest Service website and a local Utah County newspaper. Second—and most consequentially—it removes NEPA from the permit’s issuance, renewal, and administration, meaning no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment is required.
The bill also gives the Secretary authority to allow “reasonable access” to exercise permit rights, subject to conditions to protect safety and resources, and allows early termination if the holder violates permit conditions.Operationally, the statute sets up a rolling approach: permits run ten years, and the Secretary must act on renewals or reissuances within 180 days after predetermined trigger dates (10 years later, a holder’s termination request, or early termination for noncompliance). It also places a narrow ethical limit on holders by prohibiting them from accepting anything of value in exchange for naming another person as a successor under the priority rules.
That mix of affirmative direction to the agency, procedural shortcuts, and a named‑beneficiary preference is what makes this bill notable for land managers and counsel who advise on public‑land uses.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Secretary must issue the initial special use permit within 180 days of enactment and the permit term is 10 years.
The bill names Robert S. Collins of Provo, Utah, as the first designee to receive the permit; if he declines, the Secretary follows a three‑tier local priority for selection.
The statute exempts issuance, renewal, and administration of the permit from NEPA, removing both environmental assessments and impact statements for this action.
The Forest Service may not assess any land use fees for the permit and must publish notice only on the Forest Service website and in a local Utah County newspaper of record.
The holder must comply with Secretary‑imposed terms and conditions, may be terminated for noncompliance, and is prohibited from accepting anything of value in exchange for identifying a successor under the priority scheme.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Sets the act’s citation as the "Star‑Spangled Summit Act of 2025." This is a formality but signals Congress intended a focused, self‑contained authorization rather than a broader amendment to existing permitting statutes.
Who and what the statute covers
Defines key terms: the covered flagpole (a flagpole bearing the U.S. flag), the precise location of Kyhv Peak Lookout Point (with coordinates), what a "qualified person" is (Utah County resident, nonprofit, or volunteer organization with relevant flagpole experience), and that "Secretary" means the Secretary of Agriculture acting through the Chief of the Forest Service. Those definitions constrain eligibility and make the authorization explicitly local and site‑specific.
Mandates a 10‑year permit and names a primary recipient
Requires the Secretary to issue a 10‑year special use permit for placing and maintaining the flagpole at Kyhv Peak within 180 days. The statute gives first offer to Robert S. Collins; if he declines, the Secretary must follow the selection procedures for qualified persons. This structure reduces agency discretion to decline issuance absent demonstrable noncompliance with statutory conditions.
Application, priority, and permit terms
Directs the Secretary to accept applications from qualified persons and establishes a prioritized order for selection: prior holders, individuals identified by the prior holder, then other applicants. The Secretary retains authority to set terms and conditions the agency deems necessary for care and maintenance, and must publish notice of permit availability on the Forest Service website and in a local newspaper. The section also waives land use fees for this permit.
Automatic renewal window and compliance enforcement
Requires the Secretary to renew or issue a new 10‑year permit within 180 days after the earliest of three trigger events (10‑year anniversary, holder request for termination, or an early termination). It also allows the Secretary to terminate a permit early for failure to comply with imposed terms and conditions, supplying an administrative enforcement mechanism for managing resource and safety risks.
Ethics restriction on successor identification
Prohibits a permit holder from accepting anything of value in exchange for identifying a person under the priority rule (the mechanism that lets a prior holder designate a successor). This criminalizes—or at least creates grounds for revocation for—quid‑pro‑quo successor arrangements and attempts to keep the designated succession local and non‑commercial.
NEPA exemption and authorized access
Declares that NEPA does not apply to issuance, renewal, or administration of this special use permit—explicitly removing environmental review. Separately, the Secretary may authorize reasonable access to Kyhv Peak for exercising permit rights, subject to conditions to protect public safety and natural resources. Together these provisions speed implementation while attempting to preserve agency control over access conditions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Robert S. Collins (named first designee): He receives statutory priority to hold and operate the permit, creating an enforceable right to manage the flagpole site for the 10‑year term if he accepts the permit.
- Local nonprofits and volunteer organizations in Utah County: The priority scheme and "qualified person" definition favor local civic groups with flagpole experience, giving them preferential access to a coveted, fee‑exempt Forest Service authorization for a visible site.
- Local communities and tourism operators in Utah Valley: A maintained flag at a prominent lookout can be a local symbol and draw, and organizations that run events or trail programs may benefit from clarified access and a long‑term steward for the site.
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S. Forest Service (regional staff): The agency must process and administer a site‑specific permit on a condensed timeline, shoulder oversight and compliance duties without fee revenue, and manage any safety or resource protection measures that the permit requires.
- Other potential permit applicants and public‑interest groups: The NEPA exemption and narrowly prescribed priority will limit opportunities for broader public input or competing uses on the site, constraining other stakeholders who might otherwise apply or comment.
- Natural resources and recreationists: Concentrated human activity around a long‑term flagpole installation increases erosion, trail use, and visual‑resource impacts; local land managers and recreational users bear the consequences of those impacts even if they do not benefit directly.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits a desire to secure and simplify a long‑term, locally managed symbolic use of National Forest land against the Forest Service’s responsibility to apply neutral, transparent procedures and environmental review to protect public resources—a trade‑off between local control and expedited, narrow authorization on one hand, and institutional safeguards, public participation, and environmental scrutiny on the other.
The statute addresses a narrow practical objective—establishing and maintaining a single flagpole—but it uses tools (NEPA exclusion, named designee, fee waiver) that have outsized administrative and precedent effects. Removing NEPA eliminates the standard analytical framework the Forest Service uses to assess impacts and alternatives.
That accelerates placement but leaves open questions about how the agency will evaluate resource impacts, document its decisionmaking, and defend any future legal challenges about environmental review or agency compliance with other statutes.
Giving a named individual first right to a public‑land permit and privileging prior holders or their designees raises fairness and accountability issues. The Secretary retains some discretion (for example, in setting additional experience requirements and conditions), but the statute narrows comparative review and creates a durable, long‑term private stewardship model on public land without the checks that normally accompany discretionary permitting.
The land use fee waiver and the prohibition on accepting value for successor identification further diminish typical oversight levers: the agency loses fee revenue that could fund monitoring, and the statutory ban on transactional successor arrangements may be hard to police in practice.
Operationally, the bill leaves several implementation questions open: how the Forest Service will define and document the “experience” that qualifies applicants, what specific terms and monitoring will be required to protect safety and resources, how the agency will publish notice and process competing applications within the 180‑day windows, and how access will be authorized on trails or routes that cross other jurisdictions or private land. Those gaps create real administrative burdens and legal risk despite the bill’s apparent simplicity.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.