The bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture (acting through the Forest Service) to provide a special use permit allowing the placement and maintenance of a United States flagpole at a named lookout on Kyhv Peak in the Uinta National Forest, and to do so in a way that expedites and simplifies the permitting process.
This is a site-specific authorization that hands a local person or organization legal responsibility for a flagpole on federal land. Practically, the measure creates a narrow administrative carve-out for a particular use on National Forest System land and signals how Congress can bypass usual processes to accomplish a local, symbolic objective.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the Forest Service to issue a special use permit enabling the placement (if needed) and upkeep of a U.S. flagpole at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point and gives priority to a locally identified individual. The Secretary may attach conditions to ensure proper maintenance and protect resources.
Who It Affects
Primary actors are the Forest Service, Utah County residents and volunteer organizations that manage or maintain memorials or displays on public land, and local stakeholders who use or visit Kyhv Peak. It also affects potential applicants seeking special use permits on National Forest land as a narrow procedural precedent.
Why It Matters
The statute creates a targeted, congressionally directed grant of land-use authorization that sidesteps some routine administrative steps and fee collection. For land managers and compliance officers, it raises questions about implementation, precedent for other place-specific authorizations, and how agencies police compliance without standard procedural tools.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill sets up a limited permitting regime for a single named location in the Uinta National Forest. It defines who counts as a ‘‘qualified person’’—an individual who lives in Utah County or an organization that operates in Utah County—and requires that qualified persons demonstrate relevant experience caring for a flagpole.
If the named individual declines the permit, the Secretary runs a selection process among qualified applicants. The selection prioritizes (1) an incumbent who held the previous permit, (2) someone the prior holder identifies, and (3) other qualified applicants the Secretary finds appropriate.
Applicants must submit information the Secretary requires, and the Secretary can attach terms and conditions to any permit to make sure the flagpole is properly cared for and that public safety and resource protections are preserved. The Secretary also must publish a public notice about permit availability on the Forest Service website and in a local Utah County newspaper of record.
The statute prohibits a permit holder from accepting anything of value in exchange for identifying another person for a priority slot.The bill gives the Secretary explicit authority to grant reasonable access to Kyhv Peak for permit-related activities, but says such access can carry conditions to protect visitors and the environment. If a permit holder fails to follow the Secretary’s terms, the Secretary can terminate the permit early; the statute otherwise contemplates orderly renewal or reissuance when a permit ends or is surrendered.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires the Secretary to issue the initial special use permit within 180 days of enactment.
Each special use permit issued under the bill lasts for 10 years.
The Forest Service may not assess any land use fees for the permit under this statute.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not apply to issuance, renewal, administration, or related placing/maintenance/removal activities for the flagpole.
The bill specifically names Robert S. Collins of Provo, Utah, as the person to receive the permit first; if he declines, the permit goes to a qualified person selected under the statute.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Establishes the Act’s name: ‘‘Star-Spangled Summit Act of 2025.’
Key statutory definitions
This subsection supplies the concepts the rest of the statute uses: it defines the covered flagpole (a pole bearing the U.S. flag), pins the physical location by latitude/longitude, defines a ‘‘qualified person’’ (residence or operations in Utah County plus relevant flagpole experience), and confirms ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of Agriculture acting through the Forest Service. Those choice definitions limit who can apply and tether the authorization to a compact local community.
Who must get a permit and how the first permit is allocated
The Secretary must issue a single special use permit for placing and maintaining the covered flagpole at Kyhv Peak. The statute gives the first entitlement to a specific named individual; only if that person declines does the general qualified-person process kick in. This structure creates a private-right-of-priority embedded in statute rather than leaving allocation fully to agency discretion.
Application, priority order, and enforceable terms
Qualified applicants submit information the Secretary requires. The statute sets a three-tier priority: incumbent prior holder, a person the prior holder identifies, then other qualified applicants. The Secretary can place terms and conditions on the permit (maintenance standards, safety measures, limits on activities) and is explicitly required to publish notice on the Forest Service website and a local paper of record—procedures that shape transparency and local outreach.
Renewal, reissuance, and early termination authority
The statute mandates orderly renewal or issuance of a subsequent permit when a permit ends, when the holder surrenders it, or when early termination occurs. It also gives the Secretary authority to terminate a permit if the holder fails to comply with the attached terms and conditions, creating the primary enforcement lever for ensuring upkeep and safety.
Anti‑payment rule, NEPA carve‑out, and access authorization
The bill bars permit holders from accepting anything of value in exchange for identifying a replacement under the priority rules. It also removes NEPA review from the permit’s issuance, renewal, and administration and from activities tied to placing, maintaining, or removing the flagpole. Finally, it authorizes the Secretary to grant reasonable access for permit‐related work subject to conditions necessary to protect visitors and natural resources.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government 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
- Local volunteers and nonprofit stewards in Utah County — the statute restricts eligibility to local residents or organizations, creating a clear pathway for community groups that care for the site to obtain legal authority and responsibility for the flagpole.
- The named individual (Robert S. Collins) — the bill places him at the front of the line to receive the initial permit, effectively guaranteeing statutory priority if he accepts.
- Visitors and local businesses — a maintained flagpole and a designated lookout can become a local amenity that supports recreation and may modestly boost visitation or community events.
- Volunteer organizations that already operate in the area — by defining ‘‘qualified person’’ to include such groups, the law enables established local operators to formalize stewardship roles.
Who Bears the Cost
- Permit holder(s) — responsibility for placement, maintenance, and compliance falls to whoever accepts the permit, including bearing labor or private fundraising burdens to keep the flagpole in proper condition.
- Forest Service staff — the agency must administer the statutorily directed permit, monitor compliance, and exercise termination authority, absorbing administrative workload despite the bill’s fee exemption.
- Federal oversight of environmental impacts — by removing NEPA review, the bill shifts the burden for identifying and managing environmental consequences onto Forest Service operational controls and the permit holder rather than the public NEPA process.
- Federal fee revenue — the land use fee exemption forecloses fee receipts the Forest Service would ordinarily collect for a special use permit, imposing a small fiscal cost on the agency or its managing accounts.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between honoring a local, symbolic use of national forest land through quick, targeted authorization and preserving public procedural and environmental safeguards that protect federal lands; the bill favors expediency and local stewardship at the expense of routine review, transparency, and fee‑based resource management.
The bill imposes several tight trade-offs. Removing NEPA and waiving land use fees speed administrative action, but they also narrow public participation and formal environmental review.
That places a premium on the Secretary’s rulemaking and permit‑term conditions as the primary checks on resource impacts; those administrative tools are less transparent and offer narrower remedies than a full NEPA process.
The statute’s priority architecture and explicit naming of an initial recipient are unusual and raise precedent risks. Congress creating a statutory priority for a named private individual is effectively an appropriation of a permit slot that would normally be allocated by agency procedure; that could invite requests for similar, site-specific authorizations elsewhere.
The statute also provides the Secretary wide discretion—defining ‘‘qualified person’’ to include experience ‘‘the Secretary determines relevant’’ and allowing broadly phrased terms and conditions—so implementation will hinge on how the agency exercises that discretion and documents it for review.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.