Order Code IB10093
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
National Park Management and Recreation
Updated August 29, 2002
Carol Hardy Vincent and David Whiteman, Coordinators
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
Maintenance Backlog
Motorized Recreation
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program
The National Trails System
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
History
Overview of Issues
Current Issues
Maintenance Backlog
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Motorized Recreation: Personal Watercraft and Snowmobiles
Background
Administrative Actions, Personal Watercraft
Legislative Activity, Personal Watercraft
Administrative Actions, Snowmobiles
Legislative Activity, Snowmobiles
Motorized Recreation: Aircraft Overflights
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
The National Trails System
Background
Administrative Actions
Legislative Activity
LEGISLATION
Motorized Recreation
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program & Maintenance Backlog
National Trails System
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
FOR ADDITIONAL READING


IB10093
08-29-02
National Parks and Recreation
SUMMARY
The 107th Congress is considering legis-
D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway re-
lation on and conducting oversight of issues
quires NPS to take certain actions to decide
related to lands managed for recreation, espe-
whether to keep or modify the ban. Grand
cially National Park Service (NPS) lands. The
Canyon National Park is at the center of a
Administration also is focusing on park and
conflict over whether to limit air tours over
recreation issues through budgetary, regula-
national parks. An August 2002 appeals court
tory, and other actions. Several key issues are
decision directs the FAA to use NPS “natural
covered in this report.
quiet” standards and consider commercial
flight-generated noise impacts in developing
Maintenance Backlog. One issue for
air tour overflight regulations. Bills have been
Congress is determining the appropriate fund-
introduced to encourage safe use of PWCs; to
ing level to maintain park units, and whether
ban snowmobile use, or to overturn the ban, in
to appropriate new funds or use funds from
most parks; and to govern air tours at parks.
existing programs for park maintenance. In
his FY2003 budget, President Bush restated
Recreational Fee Demonstration
his commitment to eliminating NPS’s multi-
Program. The “Fee Demo” Program was
billion dollar maintenance backlog by
created to allow the NPS and other land man-
FY2006, and requested a total of $663 million
agement agencies to test the feasability of
for FY2003 for all regular and deferred con-
supplemental self-financing through new fees.
struction and maintenance. The NPS is con-
In its FY2003 budget, the Bush Administra-
tinuing efforts to define, quantify, and elimi-
tion proposed making the program permanent.
nate its backlogged maintenance. Congress
P.L. 107-63 extended the program for 2 years
has included money for some NPS mainte-
and gave agencies discretion to establish any
nance backlog needs in FY2003 Interior
number of fee projects, among other changes.
appropriations bills.
Other measures are under consideration,
including to establish a permanent program.
Motorized Recreation. Motorized
recreation, notably the use of personal
The National Trails System. While
watercraft (PWC) and snowmobiles in NPS
designation of trails is often popular, issues
units and commercial air tours over them, has
remain regarding funding, expansion, and
fueled debate over the balance between recre-
quality of trails. Congress is considering
ation on, and protection of, park lands. Re-
legislation to amend the National Trails Sys-
cent controversies focused on regulatory
tem Act to include a new category of trails; to
actions that restrict use of these vehicles. For
provide authority to acquire land for certain
instance, in 2000, the NPS prohibited PWCs
trails, but only from willing sellers; and to
in 66 NPS areas and is reevaluating such use
study certain routes, as well as authorize other
in another 21 areas. Clinton Administration
studies, for possible additions to the System.
actions to enforce regulations limiting snow-
As part of President Bush’s National Parks
mobile use in national parks were controver-
Legacy Project, park trails would be increased,
sial. The June 29, 2001, settlement of a law-
and under the President’s Conservation Part-
suit by the current Administration to overturn
ners Initiative, teams of concerned citizens
a phase-out of snowmobile use in Yellowstone
and NPS staff will restore and preserve park-
and Grand Teton National Parks and the John
lands, including trails.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

IB10093
08-29-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The full House and the Senate Appropriations Committees have agreed to measures
(H.R. 5093 and S. 2708 respectively) providing higher levels of funds for NPS construction
in FY2003 than was requested by the President. On June 19, 2002, the Senate Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing on bills to make the Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program permanent.

The settlement of a suit over a rule regulating the use of personal watercraft (PWC)
prohibits PWCs from areas where they are now allowed unless the NPS takes certain
actions. The NPS is re-examining the snowmobile ban in Yellowstone and Grand Teton
National Parks and the Rockefeller Parkway. A draft supplemental environmental impact
statement released in February 2002 reviews four options without designating a preferred
alternative.

An August 2002 appeals court decision directs the FAA to use NPS “natural quiet”
standards and consider commercial flight-generated noise impacts in developing air tour
overflight regulations.

S. 498, which would amend the National Trails System Act by adding “National
Discovery Trails” as a new category of long distance trails, and by designating “the
American Discovery Trail” the first coast-to-coast trail, passed the Senate on August 3,
2001. On May 16, 2002, a House subcommittee held hearings on a companion bill, H.R. 36.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
The National Park System is perhaps the federal land category best known to the public.
The National Park Service (Department of the Interior, DOI) manages 385 units, including
56 units formally entitled “national parks” and a host of other designations. The System has
more than 84 million acres.1 The NPS has an appropriation of approximately $2.38 billion
(FY2002), employs about 21,000 permanent and seasonal employees, uses an additional
90,000 volunteers, and has more than 285 million visitors yearly.
The NPS statutory mission is multi-faceted: to conserve, preserve, protect, and interpret
the natural, cultural, and historic resources of the nation for the public and to provide for
their use and enjoyment by the public. The mission’s dichotomy of use and preservation can
sometimes be inherently contradictory, and NPS spokespeople have asserted that
preservation is the ultimate priority. In general, activities which harvest or remove resources
from units of the System are not allowed. The NPS also supports the preservation of natural
and historic places and promotes outdoor recreation outside the System through grant and
1 This figure includes an estimated 4.3 million acres of private land. NPS policy is to acquire “in-
holdings” from willing sellers or to create special agreements to encourage land owners to sell.
CRS-1

IB10093
08-29-02
technical assistance programs. The emphasis is on cooperation and partnerships with state,
municipal, and local governments as well as foundations, corporations, and other private
parties to protect National Park System units and to advance NPS programs. Congressional
and management attention continually centers on how to balance the recreational use of
parklands with the preservation of park resources. Another focus has been on determining
appropriate levels and sources of funding to operate and maintain NPS facilities and to
manage NPS programs.
History
The establishment of several national parks preceded the creation in 1916 of the
National Park Service (NPS) as the park system management agency. Congress established
the nation’s first national park — Yellowstone National Park — in 1872. The park was
created in the then territories of Montana and Wyoming “for the benefit and enjoyment of
the people,” and placed “under the exclusive control of the Secretary of the Interior” (16
U.S.C. §§21-22). In the early years, Yellowstone was guarded by the Army. In the 1890s
and early 1900s, Congress created several other national parks from western public domain
lands, including Sequoia, Yosemite, Mount Rainier, Crater Lake, and Glacier. The effort to
set aside more national parks intensified as wild nature and scenic and cultural areas were
vanishing with the closing of the frontier. Parks have always been popular with the public.
In addition to the desire to preserve nature, there has also been interest in promoting
tourism. Western railroads, often recipients of vast public land grants, were advocates of
many of the early parks and built grand hotels in them to support their business.
At the same time, there were efforts to protect the sites and structures of early Native
American cultures, particularly in the Southwest, along with other special sites. In 1906,
Congress enacted the Antiquities Act to authorize the President to proclaim national
monuments on federal lands that contain “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric
structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest” (16 U.S.C. §431). (For more
information on national monuments, see CRS Report RS20902, National Monument Issues.)
There was no system of national parks and monuments until 1916, when President
Wilson signed a law creating the NPS to manage and protect the national parks and many of
the monuments then in existence and those yet to be established. That law — the “Organic
Act” — provided that the NPS “shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas
known as national parks, monuments, and reservations . . . to conserve the scenery and the
natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the
same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment
of future generations” (16 U.S.C. §1). A major step in developing a system of park lands
more national in scope occurred in 1933, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt transferred
63 national monuments and historic military sites from the Forest Service and War
Department to the NPS.
Overview of Issues
The 107th Congress is considering legislation or conducting oversight on several NPS-
related issues. Four major issues are covered in this report: funding for NPS maintenance,
regulation of motorized recreation, the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, and issues
related to the National Trails System. While in some cases the issues discussed here are
CRS-2

IB10093
08-29-02
relevant to federal lands other than parks and to other agencies, this report does not
comprehensively cover issues primarily affecting other federal lands. For background on
federal land management generally, see CRS Report RL30867, Federal Land Management
Agencies: Background on Federal Land and Resource Management
. Information on BLM
and Forest Service lands is contained in CRS Issue Brief IB10076, Public (BLM) Lands and
National Forests
. Information on appropriations for the NPS is included in CRS Report
RL31306, Appropriations for FY2003: Interior and Related Agencies.
NPS-related issues not detailed in this brief include protection from outside threats, the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), heritage areas, the creation of new park units,
and funding for anti-terrorism activities. First, while parks historically were “buffered” from
much human impact by their remote locations and adjoining wild lands, the situation has
changed. How to protect park resources from outside threats such as detrimental land uses,
growing populations, contaminated water, and tourist attractions, while at the same time
recognizing the benefits of growth, development, and tourism to surrounding communities,
presents difficult issues for Congress. Second, the LWCF is the principal federal source of
money for the NPS (and other agencies) to acquire new recreation lands. Policy issues
include the size of the fund, need for an annual appropriation, and the congressional role in
choosing lands to acquire. (For more information on LWCF, see CRS Report 97-792 ENR,
Land and Water Conservation Fund: Current Status and Issues.) Third, the NPS assists non-
federal efforts to protect and manage “heritage areas” which Congress designates on non-
federal lands — sometimes in lieu of establishing NPS units. Whether to create heritage
areas, and whether to establish a uniform program with procedures and criteria for heritage
area designation, are among the issues. Fourth, how national park units are created and what
qualities make a potential area eligible to be an NPS unit are of continuing interest. (For
more information on creating NPS units, see CRS Report RS20158, National Park System:
Establishing New Units
.)
Fifth, the NPS manages high profile natural and commemorative sites, including many
of the monuments in Washington, D.C., and is thus undertaking new security initiatives in
response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The agency received funds under the
Emergency Supplemental Appropriation for FY2001 (P.L. 107-38) for emergency response
costs in New York City and Washington D.C., and under the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriation for FY2002 (P.L. 107-117) for increased security at nationally iconic
“symbols of democracy” sites, enhanced preparedness for possible attacks, and constructed
security improvements at Washington D.C. monuments and memorials. The agency
received additional supplemental funds for security for FY2002, as provided by PL 107-206,
signed by the President August 2. Additional funding for anti-terrorist activities is included
in the regular annual appropriations laws. (For more information on anti-terrorism funds and
activities, see “Funding to Combat Terrorism” in CRS Report RL31306).
Current Issues
Maintenance Backlog (by David Whiteman)
Background. One issue for Congress is determining the appropriate level of funds
to adequately maintain park units and whether to appropriate new funds or to use funds from
CRS-3

IB10093
08-29-02
existing programs for park maintenance. In addition to protecting its natural resources, the
NPS has an extensive physical maintenance obligation, with an infrastructure that includes
thousands of miles of roads, trails, bridges, tunnels, thousands of buildings (many historic),
as well as scores of water and waste systems. In the past, agency budgets and appropriated
funds have not covered all of the repair and maintenance needs of the NPS. In submitting
its FY2002 budget, the agency estimated its maintenance backlog at $4.9 billion. The
estimate is based on initial reviews and other partial information, making the precise amount
of its backlog difficult to determine. Another agency source estimated the backlog in
FY2001 as ranging roughly between $4 and $7 billion. Public concern about deteriorating
facilities led Congress to increase overall NPS appropriations each year since FY1996 and
to provide the maintenance backlog with new funding sources. (See “Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program” below.)
Although other federal land management agencies also have large maintenance
backlogs, the NPS backlog has received the most attention. The Interior Department and
some environmental and park advocacy groups attribute the multi-billion dollar backlog to
decades of funding shortfalls and budgetary constraints. Other factors contribute to the
maintenance backlog, among them the creation of new park units, additional management
responsibilities for the NPS, increased visitors, and aging infrastructure. There appears to
be increasing bipartisan support for addressing the maintenance backlog.
Administrative Actions. In his FY2003 budget, President Bush restated his
commitment to eliminating the NPS’s multi-billion dollar maintenance backlog by FY2006,
but did not specify each year’s funding for this purpose. Rather, for FY2003, the President
proposed $322.4 million for construction, and another $529.4 million for facility operation
and maintenance, for a total of $851.8 million. Excluding facility operation, the President
seeks a total of $663 million for all NPS construction and facility maintenance, which would
include both regular (cyclical), as well as deferred maintenance. The request includes an
increase of $17.6 million in the Operations account for repairs and rehabilitation, and a $25
million increase for cyclic maintenance so that backlogged maintenance does not increase.
The elimination of the NPS maintenance backlog, proposed as a campaign promise, was
initiated by President Bush in his FY2002 budget when $4.9 billion was requested over 5
years to eliminate the backlog through a combination of transportation fund money,
appropriated funds, and revenues from recreation fees. Of the total sought, $2.7 billion was
for park road and bridge needs, funded from gasoline taxes, while $2.2 billion was for the
nonroad backlog funded from annual appropriations and revenues from the Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program. Of the $2.2 billion, for deferred maintenance the President
requested $440 million per year for 5 years, beginning with FY2002. The FY2002 request
was comprised of $340 million in appropriations and $100 million in revenues from the Fee
Demo Program. Because the President’s FY2003 budget proposed only total funding for
regular and deferred maintenance ($663 million combined), it is unclear whether the
President continues to seek $440 million for deferred maintenance for FY2003.
Some park and environmental groups advocate additional funds for park operations to
meet ongoing maintenance needs so as to prevent the backlog from increasing. Park
advocates have assembled a coalition, which they report includes a third of all Senators and
84 House Members, to promote nearly tripling the proposed increase of $97.5 million for
operations of the national park system in FY2003.
CRS-4

IB10093
08-29-02
The Clinton Administration’s FY2000 budget proposal first highlighted an Interior
Department-wide campaign to prioritize maintenance needs over a 5 year period. For each
year since, the NPS has submitted a Five Year Maintenance and Capital Improvement Plan
identifying deferred maintenance projects in priority order, with emphasis on critical health
and safety projects, and resource protection.
The NPS has two efforts underway to define and quantify its maintenance needs. First,
the agency is implementing a computerized facility maintenance management system for
planning and tracking facilities management, with baseline information on facility
conditions. It will be used in part to list maintenance needs, assign repair work, and identify
completed maintenance projects. Some park units are using the system, and the NPS
anticipates use by all parks at the end of FY2003. Second, in December 1999, the Interior
Department required bureaus to assess the condition of their facilities. NPS is undertaking
a comprehensive review of its facilities to identify maintenance needs. The agency
anticipates that the assessment will be completed in FY2006 and may reveal higher than
estimated deferred maintenance costs. Similar assessments will be conducted every 5 years.
The Interior Department’s Inspector General reported to the Congress in December,
2001 on the Department’s facilities maintenance management. Among the report’s
recommendations is the establishment of a single maintenance budget funded through one
appropriation for the entire department. As an intermediate step, the report proposes the
establishment of single line item budgets for maintenance in each bureau, under the oversight
of a Chief Maintenance Officer for all departmental maintenance budgets. The FY2003
request for the NPS partially consolidates maintenance accounts.
Legislative Activity. House-passed (H.R. 5093) and Senate Committee-approved (S.
2708) bills providing appropriations for FY2003 for Interior and Related Agencies contain
higher levels of funds than the President’s request for construction and for facilities
operations and maintenance. The House passed $325.2 million for construction, and $537.7
million for facilities operation and maintenance, for a total of $862.8 million. The
Administration asserted that the House-passed construction level includes unrequested
construction projects which divert resources from priority maintenance needs. The Senate
Committee on Appropriations approved $361.9 million for construction, and $533.8 million
for facilities operation and maintenance, for a total of $895.7 million.
The FY2002 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-63) provides
$363 million for the NPS maintenance backlog. Together with $100 million from Fee Demo
revenues, there is $463 million in FY2002 to address the NPS maintenance backlog. Other
107th Congress legislation (H.R. 359, S. 224, and S. 930) would fund some park maintenance
with bonds secured by a surcharge over, or set aside from, park entrance fees.
Motorized Recreation: Personal Watercraft and Snowmobiles (by
Kori Calvert)
Background. The NPS Organic Act of 1916 set forth a dual mission that embodies
the ongoing conflict between preservation and recreation: to protect, preserve and leave
unimpaired the natural and cultural resources in the agency’s care while promoting visitor
use and enjoyment of them. Motorized recreation, notably the use of personal watercraft
(PWC) and snowmobiles on NPS lands and commercial air tours over them, has fueled the
CRS-5

IB10093
08-29-02
preservation/recreation debate. Critics of motorized recreation point out that many types of
non-motorized recreation are allowed in park units and cite environmental concerns with
motorized uses, including noise, air, and water pollution; damage to land, plants, and
wildlife; and public safety. Supporters of motorized access argue that technological
advances will enable manufacturers to produce cleaner, more efficient machines, and point
to the economic benefits to communities serving users. Recent controversies have focused
on regulatory actions that would restrict recreational use or “access” of these vehicles, often
in specific park units.
Administrative Actions, Personal Watercraft. PWCs are high-speed, very
shallow draft, and highly maneuverable watercraft “operated by a person or persons sitting,
standing, or kneeling on the vessel rather than within the confines of the hull” (36 CFR §1.4).
Often used to perform stunt-like maneuvers, PWCs include watercraft known by their brand
and generic names as jet ski, sea doo, surf jet, water sled, wavejammer, wetjet, waverunner,
and wet bike. Representing a small but fast growing segment of the recreational boat market,
PWCs reportedly account for a disproportionate number of accidents. In an effort to manage
their use, the NPS published a final rule on March 21, 2000, effective April 20, 2000,
prohibiting PWC use from 66 of the 87 NPS-administered parks, seashores, and recreational
areas where motorized boats are allowed (65 Fed. Reg. 15077). The rule allowed PWC use
to continue until April 22, 2002, at 21 areas where it was already occurring while the NPS
evaluated whether to permanently authorize PWC use and develop and finalize special
regulations, as appropriate. The rule recognized that PWC use might continue in certain
National Recreation Areas, such as Lake Mead and Glen Canyon, where the establishing
legislation emphasized motorized water-based recreation as a primary purpose.
Bluewater Network and its parent organization, Earth Island Institute, filed a lawsuit
against DOI and NPS over the PWC rule in August 2000. The negotiated settlement,
finalized in April 2001, prohibits PWCs from the 21 NPS areas where they are not allowed
unless the Park Service initiates a park-specific rulemaking process, prepares an
environmental analysis as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and
solicits public comment. PWCs may continue to operate in these 21 park units during the
rulemaking process, which must be completed for 13 units by April 22, 2002. Eight National
Recreation Areas have until September 15, 2002, to finalize PWC regulations. A federal
district court approved the settlement and dismissed a motion to intervene from two
watercraft industry associations.
On April 16, 2002, NPS announced it would permanently prohibit PWC use in five park
units, effective April 22, 2002. These units had completed an environmental review process
and favored PWC bans: Cape Cod National Seashore, Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Cumberland Island National Seashore,
and Whiskeytown National Recreation Area. A federal judge denied an injunction sought
by PWC users and manufacturers to overturn these bans on April 19, 2002. Eight additional
park units subject to the April 22, 2002, deadline were to close to PWCs then and remain
closed until the PWC-use environmental assessments and regulatory rulemaking process is
completed. The eight National Recreation Areas with the September 15, 2002, deadline are
to close temporarily then if the public review process is not completed. On July 22, 2002,
park officials stated that the NPS will temporarily ban personal watercraft from these areas
on September 15 because the agency will not complete the rulemaking process, including the
environmental reviews, by that date.
CRS-6

IB10093
08-29-02
Legislative Activity, Personal Watercraft. The House Resources Committee
reported a technical corrections bill (H.R. 3853) on April 9, 2002 (H.Rept. 107-389). The
bill includes a provision that allows PWC use to continue in 21 park units until December
31, 2004, providing NPS a two-year deadline extension to complete environmental impact
assessments. Bill supporters argue that the Clinton Administration did not provide funds for
the assessments. Critics contend that the Resources Committee failed to call any hearings
on the PWC controversy and that a technical corrections bill is not the appropriate vehicle
for a controversial PWC provision. Broader legislation (H.R. 702) encourages safe,
responsible use of personal watercraft generally.

Administrative Actions, Snowmobiles. In January 1999, a coalition of
environmental organizations filed a rulemaking petition to ban snowmobiles from all park
system units. NPS reviewed the level of snowmobile use and the extent of compliance with
existing statutes and regulations in 42 NPS units that allowed recreational snowmobiling.
The survey indicated a history of non-enforcement and prompted the April 26, 2000,
announcement that NPS would begin immediately the strict enforcement of existing, long-
standing regulations on snowmobile use. With limited exceptions, this renewed enforcement
would have substantially reduced snowmobile use in national parks units. Exceptions
included Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, park units in Alaska, Voyageurs
National Park in Minnesota, and access to private land within or adjacent to a park. The NPS
snowmobile prohibition was both praised and reviled in the press and prompted several
congressional hearings. By July 2000 the Interior Department backed away from its strict
enforcement stance with a clarification — there would be no snowmobile ban in park units
pending a formal rulemaking and public comment period. Snowmobile practices prior to the
April 2000 announcement would continue throughout the 2000/2001 fall/winter season.
The Clinton Administration issued final rules on snowmobile use in Yellowstone and
Grand Teton National Parks and the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway (66 Fed.
Reg
. 7260, January 22, 2001) that would phase out snowmobile use beginning with the
2003/2004 winter season, with limited exceptions, and phased in a replacement of
snowmobiles with multi-passenger “snow coaches.” The Bush Administration announced
in April 2001 that it would allow the rule to stand.
At the same time, the Administration continued to negotiate settlement of a lawsuit by
the International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association and others to overturn the
Yellowstone ban and re-open the rulemaking process. The June 29, 2001, settlement
agreement requires NPS to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (66 Fed.
Reg
. 39197, July 27, 2001) on snowmobile use in Yellowstone by early 2002 and to decide
whether to keep or modify the ban by November 2002. The environmental study
[http://www.nps.gov/grte/winteruse/intro.htm], released in February 2002, reviews four
options for action without designating a preferred alternative: implementing the phase-out,
delaying implementation for one additional year, allowing continued unguided
snowmobiling, or allowing limited guided snowmobile tours. The latter two alternatives
include noise and emissions restrictions.
On March 29, 2002, NPS proposed to delay implementation of the snowmobile phase-
out at all 3 park units until the end of the 2003-2004 winter use season (67 Fed. Reg. 15145),
citing additional time needed to complete the environmental review and regulatory rule-
making process. During a June 25, 2002, public meeting with state and county officials from
CRS-7

IB10093
08-29-02
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming and other stakeholders, the NPS announced its preliminary
intent to define a preferred alternative that allows some level of continued snowmobile use.
Specific requirements addressing noise, air pollution, traffic volume, and the use of guides
are still being worked out. An agreement announced on August 2, 2002, extends the NPS
Record of Decision deadline to March 15, 2003, providing 4 additional months to analyze
over 350,000 public comments and any significant new data submitted regarding the winter
use plan.
In related developments, in September 2001 the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) proposed emission standards to reduce pollution from nonroad recreational vehicles.
They would require snowmobile manufacturers to reduce hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide
emissions by 30% in 2006 and 50% in 2010. (For additional information, see CRS Report
RL31149, Snowmobiles: Environmental Standards and Access to National Parks.)
Legislative Activity, Snowmobiles. Legislative debate over snowmobile bans is
reflected in several 107th Congress bills. A House bill (H.R. 1465) would prohibit
snowmobile use in most national parks, with exceptions; and a Senate bill (S. 365) would
overturn the snowmobile ban in most national parks and direct EPA and NPS to develop
noise and emission standards for snowmobiling. H.R. 5044 and S. 2697, both introduced
June 27, 2002, require implementation of the Clinton Administration final rulemaking to
phase out snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and John D.
Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway. Two measures pertaining to snowmobile use in Denali
National Park and Preserve (H.R. 4677 and S. 2589) also have been introduced. The House
Small Business Committee held a field hearing in January 2002 on the economic concerns
of Yellowstone area small businesses and communities that serve snowmobilers.
Motorized Recreation: Aircraft Overflights (by Kori Calvert)
Background. Minimizing noise to protect the natural condition is an important
element of the NPS mission to preserve natural resources and enhance visitor enjoyment.
However, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the authority to control airspace
and the aircraft overflights that may jeopardize a park unit’s natural quiet, impair visitor
enjoyment, and raise safety concerns. This creates a conflict between resource protection and
aviation access authorities (and their constituencies). Grand Canyon National Park, with
some 90,000 scenic overflights a year, has been the focal point of the conflict between groups
seeking to limit overflights and air tour operators whose economic stability (with ripple
effects on local businesses) may depend on providing overflights. Air tour defenders argue
that vehicular traffic accompanying some 5 million Grand Canyon visitors a year is more
detrimental to the park environment than overflights.
The 1975 Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act (P.L. 93-620) directed the
Secretary of the Interior to recommend regulatory actions to address aircraft activity that
caused “a significant adverse effect on the natural quiet and experience of the park....” This
law led to early acoustic research on aircraft noise-related impacts. Following the collision
of two tour aircraft over the Grand Canyon a decade later, Congress enacted the National
Parks Overflights Act of 1987 (16 U.S.C. 1a-1 note). It directed NPS to recommend a flight
control plan for Grand Canyon National Park that would provide a “substantial restoration
of the natural quiet” and prohibited flights below the canyon’s rim. It also mandated an NPS
study on the effects of all aircraft overflights. The resulting 1994 report to Congress
CRS-8

IB10093
08-29-02
examined military flights, general aviation, and commercial air tours over national parks;
measured overflight effects on natural quiet, wildlife, safety, park visitors, and cultural and
historical resources; identified parks with significant overflight problems; and provided
legislative and regulatory recommendations to resolve park and airspace use issues, including
flight restrictions and use of quieter aircraft. An August 2002 appeals court decision directed
the FAA to use NPS “natural quiet” standards and consider commercial flight-generated
noise impacts in developing air tour overflight regulations.
Administrative Actions. In a presidential memorandum issued April 22, 1996 (61
Fed. Reg. 18229), President Clinton directed the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation
with appropriate department and agency heads, to develop regulations to address the impacts
of transportation, including overflights, on national parks. The memorandum also set 2008
as the date to substantially restore natural quiet at Grand Canyon National Park.
That mandate, and overflight requirements in the National Parks Air Tour Management
Act of 2000 (49 U.S.C. 40128 note), have segued into an ongoing and contentious
rulemaking process. Controversial park-specific regulations include two FAA final rules
published April 4, 2000, that cap the annual number of commercial air tour overflights at
Grand Canyon at 90,000 (65 Fed. Reg. 17736) and impose increased flight-free zones and
r e s t r i c t i v e r o u t i n g o v e r t h e C a n y o n ( 6 5 F e d . R e g . 1 7 7 0 8 )
[http://www.nps.gov/grca/overflights/index.html]. New routes and airspace restrictions for
the canyon’s west end Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA) have been in effect since April 19,
2001. To address air tour operators’ safety concerns, east end SFRA airspace changes are
delayed until February 20, 2003 (66 Fed. Reg. 63294). The industry seeks exemptions to air
tour caps, curfews, and air route restrictions if quiet aircraft technology is used. The FAA
did put together a working draft on quiet aircraft (66 Fed. Reg. 64778, Dec. 14, 2001) but has
not issued proposed regulations.
Legislative Activity. A measure has been introduced (S. 1151) that identifies quiet
technology standards for air tour operators at Grand Canyon National Park. Retrofitted
planes and helicopters with quiet engines and propellers would be allowed in newly restricted
Grand Canyon areas. A second bill (S. 712) would ban all scenic commercial flights over
Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National Park or within one mile of park
boundaries. No action has been taken on these bills.
The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 requires the FAA and NPS to
work with air tour operations, American Indian tribes affected by commercial overflights,
and the public to create management plans for air tours at individual park units and within
a half mile of their boundaries. Each plan could prohibit or limit air tours, such as by route
and altitude restrictions. Additional provisions required the FAA to establish quiet aircraft
technology standards for the Grand Canyon within one year and to designate Grand Canyon
routes or corridors for aircraft and helicopters using quiet technology. Quiet aircraft would
not be subject to existing caps on Grand Canyon overflights.
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (by Carol Hardy Vincent)
Background. Congress is considering whether to extend, amend, or make permanent
the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (“Fee Demo,” 16 U.S.C. 460l - 6a note). The
program allows the NPS (and the BLM, Forest Service, and FWS) to test collecting new or
CRS-9

IB10093
08-29-02
increased entrance and recreation user fees. All the funds are retained by the NPS, with 80%
kept at the collecting park. The NPS collected receipts under the program of $126 million
for FY2001 and estimates receipts at $132 million for FY2002. The NPS typically collects
far more revenues than the other three agencies combined. The NPS may spend the money
without further appropriation, on the repair and maintenance backlog; interpretation; signs;
habitat and facility enhancement; resource preservation; maintenance and operation,
including the costs of fee collection; and law enforcement. The program, originally
authorized to begin in FY1996 as a 3-year trial, has been extended through FY2004 for fee
collection with the revenue available to be spent through FY2007.
The NPS (and other agencies) generally favors Fee Demo because it generates
substantial revenue and allows discretion in setting fees, determining fee locations, and using
the revenues. Critics counter that the fees discriminate against those less able to pay, are a
double tax on the recreating public, and, together with other agency fees, confuse the public.
The Forest Service’s Fee Demo Program has received most of these criticisms.
Administrative Actions. The Bush Administration’s FY2003 budget proposes
making the Fee Demo Program permanent, and the land management agencies are working
to develop a permanent program for the President to propose. For the NPS, the FY2003
budget states that half of the monies collected will be used for deferred maintenance needs.
Recently, Fee Demo monies have substantially reduced backlogged maintenance at some
NPS units. The Administration’s FY2002 budget had proposed extending the Fee Demo
Program for 4 years, and stated that at least 60 percent of NPS receipts would be used for
deferred maintenance to help eliminate the NPS maintenance backlog. The NPS reports that
in the past approximately 60% of Fee Demo funds have been allocated to the maintenance
backlog. Specifically, since the outset of the Program, 1,671 of 2,940 approved projects, and
$259.8 million of $417.4 million have been identified as addressing deferred maintenance
needs; these figures include new construction which may result from deferred maintenance.
The NPS has asserted that more analysis is needed to determine whether to shift the current
80/20 percent split in funds to increase monies for the agency’s deferred maintenance needs.
In reports to Congress, the NPS has described efforts to improve program management.
They include: 1) reducing the cost of fee collection; (2) expanding the number of automated
fee collection locations; (3) improving the rate of obligating funds; and (4) collaborating with
other agencies to simplify fee payments. The agencies recently created an Interagency
Recreation Fee Leadership Council to facilitate coordination and consistency among the
agencies on recreation fees. The Fee Council has developed seven guiding principles for a
permanent fee program, and is developing its first annual work plan.
Legislative Activity. Legislation would create a permanent recreation fee program.
S. 2607 authorizes the collection of fees on certain lands administered by the DOI and DOA
and seeks to standardize the collection of fees among agencies. It prohibits other recreation
fees from being collected on these lands, superseding the fee program in the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act. The bill lists circumstances when fees may not be charged,
including for general access to an area. It authorizes 80% of the fees to remain at the
collecting site, except that the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior could
reduce that amount to 60% if the revenues collected by an area exceed its needs. The
Secretaries are to work jointly to issue certain recreation passes, such as the golden eagle
passport covering entrance for one year into one unit, and may issue other annual, regional,
CRS-10

IB10093
08-29-02
or site-specific passes. S. 1011 provides that between 60%-80% of the collections be
retained at the collecting site, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary
of the Interior. The money may be used for a variety of purposes, with priority for deferred
maintenance projects. S. 2473 establishes a permanent program for the National Park
Service only, with fees established based on a market analysis of factors including benefits
and services to the visitor. In general, not less than 80% of fees are to be returned to the
collecting site, but the Secretary of the Interior can change the amount to not less than 60%
where revenues exceed an area’s needs, or to not less than 90% for areas with revenue
sharing agreements with states. The bill also seeks to coordinate fees collected under the
Park Service’s recreation fee program with fees collected for other purposes, such as the
National Park Passport and state agency annual passes. At a June 19, 2002 hearing of the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on S. 2473 and S. 2607, Administration
witnesses testified in favor of a permanent recreation fee program for the four land
management agencies.
Another bill (S. 2015) would exempt residents of counties containing Fee Demo
Program areas from paying fees imposed under the program. Program impact on local
committees has been particularly sensitive for the Forest Service. Measures (H.R. 359, S.
224, S. 930) which would use certain park fees to secure bonds for park capital improvement
might affect the Fee Demo Program. Legislation also has been introduced to extend the
program to other agencies or to remove the Forest Service. (For a description of these bills,
see CRS Report IB10076, Public (BLM) Lands and National Forests.)
The FY2002 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-63)
reauthorizes the Fee Demo Program for 2 years— through September 30, 2004, for collection
and September 30, 2007, for expenditures. In the joint explanatory statement, the conferees
state that the extension is intended to allow the authorizing committees to examine the
program and decide whether, and in what form, to continue it. The law also gives agencies
discretion to establish any number of fee projects, by eliminating the minimum (10) and
maximum (100) number of test sites. It enhances the authority of the agencies to allow
discounted or free admission or use of their lands, e.g., for school groups. Additionally, it
makes permanent the requirement that the Appropriations Committees approve Fee Demo-
funded capital construction projects costing more than $500,000. The law does not specify
a percentage of the funds to be used for maintenance.
In the past, Congress also has been interested in opportunities for the agencies to expand
their methods of collecting fees and to reduce the cost of fee collection. How the collections
are accounted for and spent has been a focus, including their use for projects rather than
general agency operations; the amounts of money spent on deferred maintenance, new
construction, preservation of resources, and other needs; and which particular projects are
funded. Further, some Members have expressed a concern that Fee Demo was established
and has been extended through appropriations laws, and a preference for the appropriate
authorizing committees to determine whether to continue the program, and in what form.
A GAO report (November 2001) finds that agencies in the program could increase
innovation in setting and collecting fees, improve program coordination and consistency, and
establish performance measures for program managers.
CRS-11

IB10093
08-29-02
The National Trails System (by Sandra L. Johnson)
Background. On October 2, 1968, the National Trails System Act (P.L. 90-543),
authorizing the National Trails System (NTS), became law. Today, the federal portion of
the trails system consists of 22 national trails (8 scenic trails and 14 historic trails) covering
almost 40,000 miles, more than 800 recreation trails, and 2 connecting and side trails. More
than three decades since the trails system began, issues remain regarding funding, quality,
and quantity of trails. The 107th Congress is considering legislation to amend the National
Trails System Act to include a new category of trails, provide federal authority to acquire
land from willing sellers, and study certain routes as well as authorize other studies for
possible additions to the System.
Administrative Actions. On May 31, 2002, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton
promoted the use of trails as “pathways to health” by designating 26 new national recreation
trails (NRTs) in 16 states. With these additions, the more than 800 NRTs throughout the
United States and Puerto Rico total more than 9,000 miles. The National Trails System Act
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to recognize
community trails that qualify as additions to the National Trails System. National scenic
trails and national historic trails may be designated only through an act of Congress.
President Bush announced his National Parks Legacy Project — a comprehensive
preservation program for the 385 park units, on May 30, 2001. Under the proposal, park
trails would increase by 5,200 miles. The President also proposed a “Conservation Partners
Initiative,” by which concerned citizens throughout America will team up with the NPS to
restore and preserve parklands, including park trails. No further action has been taken on
either proposal according to staff at the NPS.
Legislative Activity. On May 16, 2002, House subcommittee hearings were held on
H.R. 36, to amend the National Trails System Act, by adding “National Discovery Trails”
as a new category of long-distance trails, and by designating the American Discovery Trail
(ADT) the first coast-to-coast trail. The Senate bill (S. 498) unanimously passed the Senate
on August 3, 2001, and was referred to the House Committee on Resources on September
5, 2001. According to proponents, the ADT is designed to connect many existing trails, and
by crossing the major north-south trails it would allow hikers to travel almost anywhere in
the country using trails, including in urban areas. Some are concerned about the rights of
private property owners adjacent to the ADT. Others have questioned the need for a new
category of trails. ADT legislation also was considered in the 105th and 106th Congresses.
On March 7, 2002, hearings were held on the Willing Seller Amendments of 2001 (H.R.
834, S. 1069). Reintroduced in the 107th Congress, S. 1069 and H.R. 834 would amend the
National Trails System Act to provide federal authority to acquire land from willing sellers
to complete nine named national scenic and historic trails authorized under the Act. Under
current law, the federal government generally can obtain land for national trail purposes,
even by condemnation. This legislation would allow the federal agencies administering nine
specified trails to obtain land from willing sellers only, which would exclude condemnation.
The legislation would not commit the federal government to purchase any land or to spend
any money, but would allow park managers to purchase land to protect the national trails as
opportunities arose and as funds were appropriated. In the 106th Congress, a Willing Seller
bill passed the House but was not taken up for Senate floor consideration.
CRS-12

IB10093
08-29-02
LEGISLATION
Motorized Recreation
H.R. 702 (Saxton)
Seeks to encourage safe use of personal watercraft. It directs the Commerce Secretary
to withhold some state grant money under the Coastal Zone Management Act unless states
prohibit PWC operation in excess of no-wake speed. It also directs the Transportation
Secretary to establish guidelines and standards for PWC operation. Introduced February 14,
2001; referred to Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Resources.
H.R. 1465 (Holt)
Prohibits snowmobile use in most national parks, with exceptions. Introduced April 4,
2001; referred to Committee on Resources.
H.R. 4677 (Young, Don); S. 2589 (Murkowski)
Provide for the use of snowmobiles in certain areas of Denali National Park and
Preserve. H.R. 4677 introduced May 7, 2002; referred to Committee on Resources. S. 2589
introduced June 5, 2002; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
H.R. 5044 (Holt); S. 2697 (Reid)
Requires implementation of the final rule to phase out snowmobile use in Yellowstone
and Grand Teton National Parks and John D. Rockefeller Jr. Memorial Parkway. H.R. 5044
introduced June 27, 2002; referred to Committee on Resources. S. 2697 introduced June 27,
2002; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
S. 365 (Thomas)
Seeks to overturn the snowmobile ban in most national parks, and directs the EPA and
the NPS to develop noise and emission standards for snowmobiling. Introduced February
15, 200l; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
S. 712 (Thomas)
Bans all scenic commercial flights over Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton
National Park and establishes a one-mile park boundary buffer zone. Introduced April 5,
2001; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
S. 1151 (Reid)
Identifies quiet technology standards for air tour operators at Grand Canyon National
Park, and allows certain “quiet” planes and helicopters in newly restricted areas. Introduced
June 29, 2001; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program & Maintenance Backlog
H.R. 359 (Kolbe); S. 224 (McCain); S. 930 (McCain)
Authorize national parks to collect a surcharge of up to $2 over existing entrance fees,
or set-aside up to $2 from existing entrance fees, to secure bonds for park capital
improvements. H.R. 359 introduced January 31, 2001, and referred to Committee on
Resources. S. 224 and S. 930 introduced January 31, 2001, and May 22, 2001, respectively;
referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
CRS-13

IB10093
08-29-02
H.R. 2217 (Skeen)
P.L. 107-63, FY2002 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, extends the
Recreational Fee Demonstration Program for 2 years, gives agencies discretion to establish
any number of fee projects, and makes other changes to the program. It also contains funds
for the maintenance backlog needs of the NPS. Signed into law November 5, 2001.
S. 1011 (Graham)
Contains provisions establishing a permanent recreation fee program, with 60%-80%
of the funds retained at the collection site. Introduced June 11, 2001; referred to Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
S. 2015 (Smith, Bob)
Exempts residents of counties containing fee demonstration areas from paying fees
under the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. Introduced March 14, 2002; referred
to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
S. 2473 (Thomas)
Contains provisions establishing a permanent recreation fee program for the National
Park Service, with 60%-90% of the funds retained at the collection site. Introduced May 8,
2002; Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held hearing on June 19, 2002.
S. 2607 (Bingaman)
Establishes a permanent recreation fee program. Introduced June 11, 2002; Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources held hearing on June 19, 2002.
National Trails System
H.R. 36 (Bereuter); S. 498 (Murkowski)
Set forth requirements to establish and administer national discovery trails and designate
the American Discovery Trail as the first national discovery trail. H.R. 36 introduced
January 3, 2001; a subcommittee of the Committee on Resources held hearings on May 16,
2002. S. 498 passed Senate August 3, 2001; referred to House Committee on Resources
September 5, 2001.
H.R. 37 (Bereuter); S. 213 (Hatch)
Direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility of designating certain routes
and cutoffs for inclusion within the Oregon, Pony Express, California, and Mormon Pioneer
National Historic Trails. H.R. 37 passed House June 6, 2001. On July 31, 2002, the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported the bill favorably with an amendment
in the nature of a substitute. S. 213 introduced January 30, 2001. A subcommittee of Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held hearings on both bills on March 7, 2002.
H.R. 834 (McInnis); S. 1069 (Levin)
Amend the National Trails System Act to clarify federal authority for land acquisition
only from willing sellers for the majority of the trails in the System. H.R. 834 passed House
March 13, 2001. S. 1069 introduced June 20, 2001. A subcommittee of Senate Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources held hearings on both bills on March 7, 2002.
CRS-14

IB10093
08-29-02
H.R. 1384 (Udall)
Designates the Navajo Long Walk National Historic Trail in areas of Arizona and New
Mexico. Passed House October 2, 2001; passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous
Consent, August 1, 2002. Signed by President August 21, 2002.
H.R. 1628 (Rodriguez)
Designates El Camino Real de los Tejas as a National Historic Trail. Passed House
September 10, 2001; referred to Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
September 12, 2001.
H.R. 1814 (Olver); S. 1609 (Kerry)
Requires study of the Metacomet-Monadnock-Sunapee-Mattabesett Trail in NH, MA,
and CT for addition to the National Trails System. H.R. 1814 passed House October 23,
2001. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported the bill favorably
without amendment on July 31, 2002. S. 1609 introduced November 1, 2001, and referred
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
H.R. 1963 (Costello)
Requires a study of the route taken by American soldier and frontiersman George
Rogers Clark during the Revolutionary War to capture the British forts in IL and IN, for
addition to the National Trails System. Passed House March 6, 2002; referred to Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources March 7, 2002.
H.R. 3691 (Wilson); H.R. 4111 (McInnis); S. 817 (Domenici); S. 1946 (Campbell)
Seek to designate the Old Spanish Trail as a National Historic Trail. H.R. 3691
introduced February 6, 2002 and H.R. 4111 introduced April 9, 2002; both referred to
Committee on Resources. S. 817 introduced May 2, 2001; referred to Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources. On August 1, 2002, S. 1946 passed the Senate with amendments by
Unanimous Consent.
H.R. 3936 (Hansen)
Designates and provides for the management of the James V. Hansen Shoshone
National Trail. Passed the House June 17, 2002; referred to Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources on June 18, 2002.
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks and Public
Lands, Issues Regarding the New NPS Methodology Used to Evaluate the Achievement
of Natural Quiet Restoration Standards in Grand Canyon National Park
, hearing, 106th
Cong., 1st sess., May 25, 1999, Washington, D.C., 1999.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Small Business, Protecting Small Business and
National Parks: The Goals Are Not Mutually Exclusive, hearing, 107th Congress, 2nd
s e s s . , J a n u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 0 2 , W e s t Y e l l o w s t o n e , M T
[http://www.house.gov/smbiz/hearings/107th/2002/020126/index.html].
CRS-15

IB10093
08-29-02
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, National Discovery
Trails Act of 2001, S. Report 107-26, 107th Cong., 1st sess., June 5, 2001, Washington,
D.C., 2001.
––
Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation, Snowmobile
Activities in the National Park System and Miscellaneous National Heritage Bills
,
hearing, 106th Cong., 2d sess., May 18, 25, 2000, Washington, D.C., 2000.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
CRS Report 98-794 ENR, Federal Recreation Fees: Demonstration Program, by Rosemary
Mazaika.
CRS Report 98-981 ENR, The National Trails System: An Overview, by Sandra L. Johnson.
CRS Report RL31149, Snowmobiles: Environmental Standards and Access to National
Parks, by James E. McCarthy.
U.S. General Accounting Office, Recreation Fees: Management Improvements Can Help the
Demonstration Program Enhance Visitor Services, GAO report GAO-02-10, Wash.,
D.C., November 2001.
–– Federal Lands: Agencies Need to Assess the Impact of Personal Watercraft and
Snowmobile Use, GAO report GAO/RCED-00-243, Wash., D.C., September 2000.
–– National Park Service, Efforts to Identify and Manage the Maintenance Backlog, GAO
report GAO/RCED-98-143, Wash., D.C., May 1998.
U.S. Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Air Quality Concerns Related to
Snowmobile Usage in National Parks, Washington, D.C., February 2000, available on
the world wide web at [http://www.aqd.nps.gov/ard/pubs/snowmobile_report.htm].
––Director’s Order #47: Soundscape Preservation and Noise Management,
[http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/DOrders/DOrder47.html].
–– Report to Congress: Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park
System, Washington, D.C., September 12, 1994.
–– 2001 Management Policies, [http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/mp/].
––Office of Inspector General. Audit Report on Deferred Maintenance, National Park
Service, report 99-I-959, Washington, D.C. September, 1999.
U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture. Recreational Fee
Demonstration Program, Progress Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2000. Wash., D.C.,
January 31, 2001
CRS-16